High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order, or direction, moie particularly, one in the nature of the wRlT of MANDAMUS declaring the action as much that of the orders of the respondents more particularly that of the Respondent No- 2 in Passing orders in (i) Memorandum No. BGL/HR tDisc-01t2023 Dt. 20.04.2023 along with the aileged articles of charge, (ii) BGL/DP/lO/Appointment/0712023101 Dt 04 .07 .2023, and that of the 5th Respondent in issuing order No. ,,' BGL/lnquiry/DGBl20:23 D1.29.07.2023 whereunder an alleged inquiry is initiated, and that of all ther respondents in nonpayment of the transfer beni:fits payable to the petitioner on accor.rnt of his transfer from Hyderabad to Vijayawada vide orders of the 3rd Respondent in BGLiHYD/TR|O9|2OZ2 Dt. 17.09 2022 as absolutely arbitrary, erroneoL.rs, ilegal, without following any process of Iaw, contrary to the service law jurisprudr>nce, against the principles of natural justice, Lrnconstitutional and in violation of tlro Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, time barred without porver, authority or jurisdiction of the Respondents t() consequenfly quash and set aside the said proceedings of the respective Respondents and also direct the respondents to pay the petitioner the transfer benefits payable to him. |.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Petition Uncier Siection 151 CPC praying that in the circumst:rnces stated in the affidavit filed in r; rpport of the petition, the High Court may be .pleased to suspend the orders cf the respondents more particularly that of the Respondent No.2 in Passingl Ctrders in (i) Memorandum No. BG L/H R/Disc-01/2023 Dt. 20.04.2023 along the alleged artictes of Charge, (ii) BGL/DP/lO/Appointmentl07l2O23lO1 Dt. 04.O7.2023, and that of the Sth Respondent in issuing order No. BGL/lnquiry/DGBt2023 D1.29.07 2023 to direct the respondents not to proceed with inquiry while directing the respondents to pay the transfer benefitr; on account of petitioner's transfer vide order No. BGL/HYD/TR/0912022 'tf the 3rd respondent from.Hyderabad to Vijayawada under the orders of the respondents pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI CHAVALI RAMANAND Counsel for the Respondents : SRI SHIV PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI KHAMAR KIRAN KANI-AMNENI The Court made the fo{lowing ORDER i n ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHII{ WRIT PBTI TION No.2lol6 of2023 Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.2 in passing orders in Memorandum No.BGL/HR/Disc-01/2023, dated 20.O4.2023, along with the alleged Articles of charge, and Memorandum No.BGL/ DP/ IO /Appointme ot / 07 I 2023 I Ol, dated 04.O7 .2023, and as that of respondent No.5 in issuing Order No.BGL/lnquiry / DGB 12023, dated 29.07.2023, inittating enquiry against the petitioner and also non-payment of transfer benefrts to the petitioner, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2l Heard Mr. Chavali Ramanand, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.Shiv Pandey, Iearned counsel, representing Sri Khamar Kiran Kantamneni, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the pelitioner submits that after concluding the alleged enquiry and passing of the illegal orders dated 11.11.2022, 06.72.2022 and 03.O1.2023, for payment of money and starting the illegal deduction of money from the salary of the petitioner, which are the subject matter of W.P.No. 18172 of 2023, the respondents as an afterthought, and to doubly jeopardize the interest and rights of the petitioner, have erroneously and arbitrarily issued impugned Memorandum dated I i I 2 wP 2 tot6_2023 PK. J

20.O4.2023\ alr(l framed charges illegally, incorrectll. and arbitrarily on the same issue of alleged advances paid to the petiti<.ner, while adding uD sonle more untenable charges with false allegiitions and averments. Iturther, when the petitioner has reqr-Lested for issuance c,f rlrcuments and access to his earlier i,mail, ttre responde:rts have insisted the petitioner to submit his response on the aiieged chzu'ges. Having left with no other option, the petitioner has submitterl preliminary explanation reserving his right to submit a detaiied explanation after receiving the docurrents and access to his <:rnail requested for and also requesled lor drbpping further procechrre. Without considering the said ex1:lanation, respondenl, Nc,.2 has appointed respondent No.S as a-r Inquiry Oflicer to cc,nduct the alleged inquiry vide order dated, 04.OT.2023. In pursuance thereof, respondent No.5 has issued norice dated

29.07.2023, fix rrg the date of inquiry as O5.0g.2023. It rs further submitted that earlier the respondents have concluded an inquiry and taken actiolt thereon and therefore it shall not lie in l.he realm of the responde rrts to again initiate a separate action. Fur.ther, the issuance oi Mr:rno of charges dated 2O.O4.2O23, appointment of Inquiry Offlcer and conducting of Inquiry are belated, tin.Le barred and without pcvrer, authority or jurisdiction and the entire series of acts inrtiate,l against the petitioner lack bonafides, f,erverse, nothing brrt vir:rimization and harassment with urterior motives. I 3 wP 270t6 2023 PK, J Therefore, the action of the respondents, more particularly, of respondent No.2 in passing the order dated 20.O4.2O23 along with ttre alleged Articles of Charge, and proceedings dated O4.O2.2023 appointing Inquiry Ofhcer and issuance of orders dated. 29.O7 .2023 is illegal and prayed to set aside the same. 4) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that respondent No. I has been reminding its employees including the petitioner for submission of invoices against the advances to the employees & suppliers. since April, 2O19, and the said communications of respondent No. 1 in that regard were deliberately suppressed by the peLitioner before this Court. Further, the respondents have categorically given the details of advances received by the petitioner, which he has not denied. However, as the petitioner is unable to give any proof of the bills allegedly submitted, an adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner. Though the petitioner was given abundant opportunities to defend his case, he did not produce any evidence to prove his innocence. Despite, respondent No.1 haci given brealup along with date of transfer of funds received by the petitioner, he did not provide any proof of the bills submitted ald made statements without any evidence. Hence, the conduct of the petitioner amounts to embezzlement of funds. Thus, he committed 4 \( P 2 t016-2023 PK, J fraud upcxr respondent No. 1. It is further contended that while issuing thr: irnpugned Memorandum of charge dated 20.O4.2023, the responde rrts have followed due process of lau, providing opportur ity to submit his explanation and as the respondents are not satisEerd ,vith the explanation submitted by the pet itioner, an Enquiry rCtffi<:r:r was conducted to enquire rnto th,.: charges. Further, thLe r:zrrlier proceedings were with regard to set tlement of accounts iend the present enquiry is with regard to con(tuct of the delinquerrt err.1>loyee. As such, the nature of both thc e:rquiries is distinct arxl dLllerent and in order to ensure fairness in the enquiry proceedings, respondent No.t has appointed an inlependent Enquiy)Ifict:r' in line with the principles of natural jr.rstice. As such, it is corrl.ended that there are no merits in the u,r it petition and the przfeil to dismiss the same. Reliance has been placed on Secretary, Min'.istry oJ Defence o. Prdbhash Chandla )Wirdhal. 5) This Cou.rt has taken note of the submissions made by respective cou;tsel 6) A peruszri of the material on record reveals tinaL v de e mail communi,)atiorls dated 20.O4.2079, 04.1O.2OI9, 01.O4.2O2O,

77.O4.202'0. Ct4.O5.2020, 07.10.2020, 12.10.2020, 04.o4.202t,

06.10.2021 arr,l O4.04.2022, tLle respondents have asked the ' 1zolzy tt scc 56) t 5 w P_21016.2023 PK, J petitioner to submit invoices/ bills in respect of the advance payments made to the petitioner. According to the respondents as the petitioner had failed to submit the supporting proof of expenditure, Articles of Charge dated 20.O4.2023 was issued to the petitioner. Further, as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, respondent No.2 vide proceedings, dated O4.O7.2023, has appointed respondent No.S as Enquiry Offrcer to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. As such, for the purpose of conducting the enquiry, respondent No.5 has issued the notice of Inquiry dated 29.07.2023 hxing the date of preliminary hearing on O5.O8.2023 and asking the petitioner to , I attend the hearing along with defense assistant. Instead of \ attending the hearing, the petitioner has approached this Court 7l In this context, it 1s apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhash Chandra Mirdha's case (referred.supra,f wherein it is held as under "8. The law does not permit quashing of charge sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/ tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in t]le case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent PK, J \ F-, empl(J ee arl,f must reach the conclusion which is just and pr()per in the circurnstan rc." 8) In vieu, r>f the above settled principle of law laid drwn by the Honble Supr,:me Court, this Court is of the considererl view that the charge sheet cannot be quashed at an initial stage in a routine manner rrs it ,r'ould be premature to deal with the issue. Therefore, the writ petitirn is liable to be dismissed. 9) Ac,:,rrdi egly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Misr:elle neous petitions pending, if any, shall stzrnd closed No costs //TRUE COPY// SD/-K. AMMAJI ASSISTAt,IT REGISTRAR i\ I,l .- .\.\ = SEC;TION OFFICER 1 2 3 To SA BS One CC tr: SF I CHAVALI RAMANAND, Advo-c.qle IOPUCI ffi 66 i" sn.i xHnvaR xtnRru KANTAMNENI, Advocate [c]PUCI Two CD Cr:Pie:; 6 ,-.:: ir..,aL , / HIGH COURT DATED:31 l01l:2025 t ORDER WP.No.21016 of 2023 l tlE '; fr,7 i F' ( Jon()U n4, DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @ct'q W