High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 e 4 ...PETITIONER - ""'- The Bhagyanagar Gas Limited,.2nd Floor, parishram Bhavan, TSIDC Building, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- SOOOb+- The ltulanaging^Director, The Bhagyanagar Gas Limited, 2nd Floor, parishram Bhavan, TSIDC Buitding, Basheei6agh] nyOeraOJO_ SObOO+. I:;#;* "J;:;,?:+3T,38,;,,X,fu lB?.'J11%:!fl :?,,,3s; ill13fl,0,031 The Committee on Ooen Ar,vances, The Bhagyanaoar Gas Limited, 2nd Ftool Parishram Bhavan, rsroC auiioing, A;".'#;;E;;h, Hyderabad_ 500004. .'""',

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 ot the constitution of rndia praying that in the -ne circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High'cJurt may pleased. to-p. ass appropriate__writ, order, or direction, particurarryl one in the nature of the wRlr of MANDAMUS decraring the action of the responoents more particularly that of the Respondent No.3 in passing orders in iit flo. (ii) ''' i,jo. BGL/HYD/HR/Adiancet11t2o2i Dr. BGL/HYD/HR/Advancer11t2o22 Dt. o6.12.2n22 and ' (iii) i,io. BGL/HYD/HR/Advancelo1t202 Dt. 03. 01. 2023 and thereafter the aition of the money from rhe satary of the petitioner unOer tne caption l:"1'1'.id_:i:,:l ,{elugtjns oI sarary ad.lustment is absorutery arbitrary, erroneous, iflegar, without foflowing "ih" any process of raw, contrary to the service raw jurispr*udence, ,g"in.i principles of nalurar justice, unconstitutionar and in violation of the Artiies i +, t 9 and 21 of the constitution of rndia to consequenfly quash and set aside the said proceedings and direct the respondents not to oeduit any money from the sarary or other emoruments payabre to the petitioner and repay aI the money deducteo, tt.tt.zozi especially the monev that has been deducted on account of salilry adjustment from the- satary of petitioner for months from January to June 2023 has been deducted from the salary of the petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under siection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstirnces stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceerlings of the respondents more par.ticularly that of the Respondent No. 3 in Passing orders in (i) No. BGL/HYD/HR/Advarce 11112022 Dl. 11.1i.2022 (ii) No. BGL/HYD/HRl/Advance111l2O22 Dt. 06 12. 20.22 and (iii) No. BGL/HYD/HRTAdvancelOll2O2 Dt. 03. 01 . 2023 while directing te respondents not to deduct any money from the salary or other emoluments llayable to the petitioner to repay a I the money deducted, especially the money that has been deducted on account of salary adjustment from the salary of petiticner for months from January to June 2023 has been deducted from the salary ol the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CHAVALI RAMANAND Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SHIV PANDEY REP. FOR SRI KHAMAR KIRAN KANTAMNENI SC FOR TSIDC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITIO N No.l8 172 of 2O23 Seeking to quash the proceedings No.BGL/HyD/HR/ Advance/ 1 112022, dated 1 1.11.2022, proceedings No.BGL/HyD/ HR/Advance / 1 | / 2022, d,ated 06. 72.2022 and No. BGLI HyD/ HR/ Advance/Ol/2O23, dated O3.O1.2O23, issued by respondent No.3, the present Writ petition is hled. 2) Heard Mr. Chavali Ramanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Shiv pandey, learned counsel, representing Sri Khamar Kiran Kantamneni, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. .Corporation 3) According to the petitioner, the first respond ent uiz., The Bhagranagar Gas Limited is a Government Company formed under the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) and the Hindustan Petroleum Limited (HPCL), both of which, are Government Companies, and initially the petitioner was employed with lrrst respondent as Deputy Manager (HR) on 2a.OS.2Ol2 and thereafter promoted to the cadre of Senior Manager and now working as OSD at Vijayawada. Though, the petitioner is employed in HR Department of respondent No. 1 Company, he was also assigned with duties of conducting officiar events and functions of Iirst respondent. In discharge of such duties, the petitioner used I 2 WP No.l817: of2023 PK. J to draw money L nder the approval of respondent No 3' The petitioner used to ilccount for such drawls of money and srbmit the required vouclrrrrs, bills and evidence of the expenses incr-rrred' But,. with a view to harass and victimize the peLitioner' the r:arlier closed issues of rlrawl of money and submission of eviderrce of expenditure of tl-tr: same were illegally and arbitrarily raked up by the respondents. The money was drawn in small amourlts on severai occasions from the financial year 2Ol7-2018 till Julv 2022' and on each oc casion of drawl of money' the petition':r has submittedaccountsalongwithevidenceofsuchexpenditure' Further, the FinarLce Department of the first responden[-Cc mpany paid money only after submission of the account and evidence for expenditure incurred by the petitioner with respect to the previously d.rawn sum ald after satisfying the veracity of th'r same' Further, as a cl<'uble check, the Finance Department of t he first respondent Comoany, would also reconcile the payments rnade to the petitioner, the expenses incurred by the petitioner iLnd the evidence proving the said expenses' at the end of every financial year. Despite the same, the petitioner was informed' vi<te letter dated, O7.O9.2C12.'.1, to appear before the Committee of Merrrbers to present his cast,. Accordingly, the petitioner has appeare'1 before respondent No.4 on 14 'Og '2022, on which date' the petiLicrner was given a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions asking hrm to fill _ __- -.--Jr.- :.- --7 3 WP No.l8l72 of2023 PIL J up the questionnaire then and there itself, without giving breathing time and without giving sufhcient time to rook into relevant documents, records and accounts. Therefore, under compulsion, the petitioner has submitted his answers to the extent possible. In the said questionnaire, it was alleged that the petitioner has taken cash advance of Rs. 11,g4,723/_ lor conducting various events and programs. In fact, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.3,g7,075/_ and Rs.2,O9,365/- on various occasions, for which, he has already submitted accounts. It is further submitted that the respondents without issuing any charge memo or without giving an opportunit5r of submitting his defence or evidence on the allegations ald without conducting any enquiry and without examining the witnesses, have issued the impugned proceedings dated 11.1I.2022, directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount thereon within seven days and started deducting the amount from the salary of the petitioner, illegally, arbitrarily dnd erroneously. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders by impugned proceedings, dated 11.1I.2022,

06.72.2022 and O3.O1.2O23. Reliance has been placed on Ms X a. Registrar Genera.l, High Court oJ Mad.hga prq.d.esh1. along with interest setting aside the t {2022) 14 SCC ra7 *,4 - I \l I, \, 1I I ll ol 202l PK. J J?.-1-ri Per conl-ra, learned Stalding Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that respondent No.1 hars been reminding its em.ployees including the petitioner for submir;sion of invoices against the advances to the suppliers since 2Ol9 and, these comtnuni::ations were deliberately suppressed lty the petitioncr. OrL review of accounts, the first respondenL came across advances pending against the employees and v:ndors. Accordingly, shr: sent emoil dated, O2.O7 .2022 directing the concernecl to ta[(r up the issues with vendors and employees to clear the dues intmediately. Further, the Head of Finance and Accounts vide note dated OT .O7.2022 has brought to the n,rtice of the managemen t of respondent No.1 during the review of b,toks of account, the ad vlutces given to the employees and vendors r,rherein the petitioner was found to be one of the defaulting employ,:es. In the said note. it was further mentioned that the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Allarl ."vere threatening raking up the issue of a Cvance clearance. Takin6J serious note of the same, the managerrrent of respondent No.l. has directed the HR Department to take s uitable action against I h e: errant employees. As such, vide Office Order dated 06.O8.20!)!t, respondent No. t has constituted a ConLmittee consisting of three persons to investigate the matter with reilard to the advances to the employees of respondent No.1 includi ng the petitioner herein- The petitioner also appeared befo;.e the ;t,., :t'tlir;. .'t;!ld.re;:.: 5 WP No.l8t72 of2023 PK, J Committee on 17.Og.2O22 and his statement was recorded by the Committee by way of a questionnaire. The Committee has submitted its report dated 12.09.2022 before the Management of respondent No.I duly recommending for recovery of Rs.4,a4pl2 /_ along with interest @ Z.2S%. Therefore, respondent No. 1 vide rmpugned order dated 11.11.2022 has called upon the petitioner to deposit the said amount, to which, the petitioner has submitted his reply dated 12.rr.2022 giving evasive answers and made baseress allegations against the respondents. Further, the committee has again submitted its report on 2O. 1 7 .2022 in respect of the issues raised by the petitioner in his reply dated 17. 1 r.2022 and_based on the said report, a letter dated 06.12.2022 was issued to the petitioner giving deta s of the advances received by him. However, without submitting any proofs and bilrs, the petitioner submitted his reply on 17 .12.2022 making false allegations against the respondents, which were replied by respondent No. 1 vide letter dated O3.O1-2023. The letter dated 0g.O1.2023 submitted by the petitioner also does not provide any proof of the said bilrs. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that the letters impugned in the present writ petition are issued simply asking the petitioner to clear his dues and therefore they are not penal in nature. Further, on one hald, the petitioner is alleging non_compliance of due process of law and on the other hand, he is assailing the 6 \\ P \i, l8l7l oil02l PK. J a letters addresserl to him providing opportunity to put up his defense. It is lirrther contended that the petitioner harl taken advances from rr:spondent No.1 Company on numerous o(casions for organizing lirnctions/ events of the Company' but 'lid not submit the billsijustihcations against those advances Though respondents havr: given ample opportunities to the petit'oner to defend his cas;e', he did not produce any evidence to prove his innocence. The -espondents have relied upon the unimpeachable documents u.ith regard lo advances received by the petitioner and the same are not denied by him and therefore it is for the petitioner to give evidence and account for those advances' As the petitioner faiied to do scl, l he respondents have initiated action agz:.inst the .he conduct of the petitioner amoilnts to cf funds, which is a serious miscond rct and elr'bezzlemenl warrants majcr llenalty of dismissal from service besides nitiation of criminal proceedings. Therefore, the respondents are justified in issuing the imprrgned proceedings for eff'ecting recovery lrom the salary of the petitioner. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petltloner as petition and prirl/ed to dismiss the same' 4l This Cor Lrt has taken note of the submissions lade by respective parties 7 WP No 18172 ot2023 PK, J 5) A perusal of the record discloses that admittedly, the recovery proceedings dated 1l.lL2O22 were issued solely basing on the recommendations of the Committee constituted by respondent No.1 vide order dated O6.Oa.2O22 and alleging that the petitioner had played fraud and involved in ernbezzlement of funds, but without conducting any enquiry and without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case action of the respondents is in gross violation natural justice and liable to be set aside. of principles of Therefore, the IS 6) Accordingly, the Writ petition allowed, the impugned proceedings dated 11.11.2022, 06.12.2022 and 03.O1.2O23 are set aside and the respondents are directed to refund the amount already recovered from the petitioner, if any. However, it is made clear that this order does not preclude the authorities from taking appropriate action against the petitioner, by following due process of law. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed No costs To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL AS ISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER 2 The Bhagyanagar Gas Limited, 2nd Floor, Parishram Bhavan, TSIDC Building, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 500004. The tVlanaging Director, The Bhagyanagar Gas Limite-d-,- 2nd Floor, Parishram Bhavan, TStot euitoing, Basheeibagh, Hyderabad- 500004. The Head of the Department - HR, The Bhagyanagar Gas Limited, 2nd Floor, Parishram Bhavan, TSIDC Building, Basheeibagh, Hyderabad- 500004' 4. The Committee on Open Advances, The Bhagyanagar Gas Limited, 2nd I Floor, Parishram Bhavan, TSIDC Building, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad- 3

500004. f

5. One CC to SRI CHAVALI RAMANAND Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI KHAMAR KIRAN KANTAMNENI SC FOR TSID(I [OPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies / KKS cJPri- r.i ll,xl.x;ii,;-;i',,' j HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 I ORDER WP.No.18172 of 2023 1Ht sl C' () 11 \Pn ztffi (( ('. .r+ , Fxr 4r,-'1 r-O ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .4dq k,t\ !'