T. Sampath v. 1. The State of Telangana

Sri. T, SAMPATH, lLrnror Asslstant of this office working rrr I Warangal ts rnvolved in this case' sN,l No.23229 2023 G.lv1 HosPrtal, WHEREAS, the power conferred by the sub rule ( 1) f rule of (l C A Rules 1991, the Principal' Kakatrya Medical College' Wa -' ngal is hereby placed Sri. T SAf4PATH, lunior Assrstant under suspensron u I il further orders by pending enqulry against hrm vide reference 9'h cited wHEREAS, this office has framed Article of Charq(: against Sri T' SAMPATH, lunior Assistant vide reference 5th cited' WHEREAS, rrr accordance wlth reference 7'h & 8tn cit: I this offrce has appointed Enquiry Offrcers to conduct the detailed inquiry \rii: reference 1Oth cited. WHEREAS, the Enqulry Offrcers have submitted deta l:d enquiry report vide reference 11rn crted in which the Article of Charges frarr ld aqainst Sri T' SAMPATH, lunlor Assistant (Under Suspension) are proved W H EREAS, individual vide refe major PU n ish men t thrs office has tssued the Show C')i: 3 Notice to the rence 12tr'cited to called for the explanl ron that' why the of drsmrssal of service should not impo'l( ( aqainst him' W H EREAS, therndividualhassubmittedtheexplal];llonVidereference 13tf' to 14'h cited. After examine refeTence 15th cited, has decided to rmpose the major punishment of dismissa Sri. T. SAMPATH, lunlor Assistant (Under Suspension) wi't the explanation submitted by tf I individual vide the Principal, Kakatiya Medical Ccrll€ le' Hanumakonda )f services aga inst mmediate effect. The Office Su Perin te ndent' Accounts section of tf s offlce is hereby directed to take necessary action accordrngly as per rule:; r force F RINCIPAL 5 5N,l W.P.No.23229 2023 Kakatiya Medical College HANUMAKONDA. To Sri T.SAMPATH, Junior Ramnagar, Hanu makonda Special lvlessenger. Assistant (Under Suspension) R/o. H.No.2-4 86, . (By. Regd. Post/Ack due) and I also send through Copy to the Supenntendent ofAccounts section of this OFfice for necessary informatron. Copy submitted to the Distnct Collector, Hanumakonda for information. Copy submitted to the Director for Medical Education, Telangana, Hyderabad for inFormation, Copy submitted to the Director ot public Health & Family Welfare, Telangana, Hyderabad for in formatton. Copy submltted to Vrgilance Commrssroner, T.S., Secretariat, Hyderabad for informatron. Copy submitted to the Princlpal Secretary to Govt Secretariat, H ydera bad. General Admrn Dept., T.S., B) The releva nt Dortion of the order dated O6.12.202L passed in W.P.No.12 2 ol 2O2l is extracted hereunder:

4. "The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a perusal of the Rule 25(1) of the Rules, 1991 clearly states that whenever any employee is convicted by the competent Criminal Court, the disciplinary authority need not conduct any enquiry and straight away, based on the conviction, he can be removed. But in the instant case, no conviction has been awarded by the competent Criminal Court and only FIR in Crime No.131 of 2O2t dated 19.04.2021 on the file of Matwada police Statlon, Warangal District, has been registered against the petitioner on the complaint given by the 3,d respondent and the same is 6 SN,I tt .P.No.23229 2023 pending. Therefore, learned counsel for the has contended that the disciplinary autho' respondent ought not to have invoked pct Rule 25( 1) of the Rules, 1991 and impc'st penalty of removal on the petitioner' Lear' for the petitioner has further contended th't the Rules, 1991 reads as follows: petitioner .y i.e., 3'd rr:rs u nder .l a major rd cou nsel llule 25 of in certaln cases: e contained in Ru t 20 to " 25. SPecial Procedur Notwithstandlng anYthing Rule 24. (i) Where ocnalty is imposed on a Gov i"ruun, on the qround of conduct which I ; I his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) When the disciplinary authorily is sa''i I i"uto.t to be recorded by rt in wrltlng thet reasonably practicable to hold an inqui-1 manner provided in these rules, or (iii) Where the governor is satisfied thal interest of the security of the State, i' expedient to hold any inquiry in the provided in these Rules, The disciplinary authority may constrl circumstances of the case and make sucr thereon as it deems fit: ed to r:d for is not n the i,r :he s not nanneT ,r the orders I x x x ] (Proviso deleted by G'O' Rt'No'6'1') Admn. (Ser-C), Dot 29.12.1993) Provided that the Commission shall be;rr sulted' where such consultation is necessary, bef'e any orders are made in any case under this rul( Genl. IProvided further that no such consultation I th the tommission is necessary before any ori:-s are made under clause(i) of this rulel (Added G.O M.S No.240, G'A (5ec-C) Dt:p Dated 14.08.2003. I - 1 5N,j W.P.No.23229 2023 A perusal of the said Rule clearly states that the disciplinary authority can invoke the said power where an employee has been convicted by the competent Criminal Court or where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules. B. Moreover, while alleging stigma against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority is bound to conduct enquiry and only after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the respondents have to pass the impugned orders. But in the instant case, no such enquiry is conducted. Therefore, on these grounds, the impugned order dt.02-04-2021 is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. It is always open for the disciplinary authority to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs. c) The relevant Dortion of the order dated 04.04.2022 Dassed in W.P.No.16772 of 2 022 is extracted hereunder: "The learned counsel For petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated L6.12.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.12902 of 202I and the same is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 8 5N,.i \ / P. N o.23 229 2023 In view of the same and following -he order passed in the above writ petition' the wr t )etition is allowed in terms thereof, setting aside the impugned Order vide Rc.No.B420IVC-E/2021 datecl t7 t'2022 issued by the 2nd respondent and f- -ther the respondents are directed to reinstate the pe- roner into service with all consequential benefiis Ho'n':ver' it is open for the disciplinary authority to tal''(r action' tn accordance with law' The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed There s rall be no order as to costs. " D) The relevant portion of the order dat! d2 .1 .2022 s IN W.P.No. 26078 of 2021 rse xtracte h e reu nder: e

10. "Having regard to the rival contenir- rs and the material on record, this court finds 1l at similar circumstances had arisen in W P No'12902'' ct 2O2l and -ou rt had vide orders dated t6 12'2021, this Nos.3 to B considered the issue at length and in Par; has held as under: "3. it has been contended by the petiti )ner that his mother was employed as Mult Purpose Health Assistant with the respondent; 'and the petitioner's mother has been retired c r medical invalidation grounds vide proceedings It 06-12- 20216. Thereafter, the petitioner has : ubmitted an application on 14-06- zolf lo cc r sider his case for appointment on com I lssionate 9 SN,] W.P.No.23229 2023 grounds. Thereafter. the respondents were pleased to consider his case for compassionate appointment on compassionate grounds vide proceedings dt.06-07-2017 and subsequenfly the petitioner's services were regularized vide proceedings dt.24-07-2019. While petitioner is discharging his duties as OFfice Subordinate, it has been alleged by the respondents that a news item has been published in the local newspaper on 22-O5-2OLB alleging that some of the employees of M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, have secured employment by producing fake certificate in the name oF Erragadda Mental Hospital, Hyderabad, and based upon the said news item, the 4th respondent had issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 2l_ lL_2020. Alleging that the petitioner has produced fake certificate at the time of securing employment and that the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation denying the said charges over the 3rd respondent had straight away imposed orders of removal vide proceedings dt.02-04_ 2021 by invoking the powers under Rule 25 (1) of the Rules, 1991.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a perusal of the Rule 25 (1) of the Rules, 1991 clearly states that whenever any employee is convicted by the competent Criminal Court, the disciplinary authority need not 10 S N,J \.P.No.23229 2023 conduct any enquiry and straight awav based on the conviction, he can be removed t'r t in the instant case, no conviction has been a"tt rCed by the competent Criminal Court and orr 1 FIR in Crime No.131 of 2O2t dt.19-04-2021 cr the file of Matwada Police Station, Warangal Dr! t - ct' has been registered against the petitionc- on the complaint given by the 3rd responderl and the same is pending. Therefore, learned (l('|r nsel for the petitioner has contended that the drs:iplinary authority i.e. 3rd respondent ouqht not fo 'ave invoked powers under Rule 25 ( 1) of tl e Rules' 1991 and imposed a major penalty 'l' removal on the petitioner. Learned couns€rl for the petitioner has further contended that tl rle 25 of the Rules, 1991 reads as follows:- "25. SPecial Notwithstanding procedure in certa in anything contained in RtLll CASCS: 20 to Rule 24- (i) where penalty is imposed on a Cio servant on the ground of conduct whi: I to his conviction on a criminal charge, l- ern ment has led (ii) where the disciplinary authority for reasons to be recorded by it in wti is not reasonably practicable to holc in the manner provided in these rules, s sa tisfiec . rg that it t n inquirY (r 1,1, 5N,J W-P.No.23229 2023 (iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules. the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fii : I x x x ] (Proviso deleted by G.O.Rt.No.6421, Genl. Admn. (Ser.-C),Dt.29-12-1993) Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule. IProvided further that no such consultation with the Commission is necessary before any orders are made under clause (i) of this rule.l (Added by G.O.Ms.No.240, G.A. (Ser-C) Dept., Dt.14- 0B- 2003) A perusal of the said Rule clearly states that the disciplinary authority can invoke the said power where an employee has been convicted by the competent Criminal Court or where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules.

5. Learned counsel that none of these for the petitioner has contended factors were there in the instant t2 S N,J '\ P. No.2 3229-202 3 case and nowhere the disciplinary autl-( rity has assigned reasons why it is not practicable 1( conduct enquiry against the petitioner' Whene ver the disciplinary authority is alleging stigma I J )inst the petitioner, the respondents are bound tl conduct enquiry so as to give opportunity to irove his innocence. But in this case, no opportunity ir given to the petitioner and straight away imposed maj rr penalty of removal vide proceedings dt'02-04-202L further directed the respondents to reinstate the pet I oner with all consequential benefits ' 6. Learned Government Pleader for ;ervices-1I appearing for the respondents has contend: J that the disciplinary authority has ample power unde' Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 to discern whether the regrr ar enquiry is required or not and the allegation levelled gainst the petitioner is that the petitioner ha: secured employment on compassionate grounds' I lsed upon the fake medical certificate produced by his r -rother and that the show cause notice issued to the F ltitioner is only after following principles of natural justi .e and only after following the due procedure, the lisciplinary authority has imposed major penalty of 't: noval from service. Therefore, the Writ Petition has no merits a nd the same ls liable to be dismissed'

7. Having regard to the rival submissions; r rade by the parties, this Court is of the considered vir: v that Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991 could not have irrtked by the 1,3 SN,J W.P.No.23229 2023 disciplinary authority as none of the three eventualities which were stipulated in Rule 25 are attracting in the instant case and no reason was recorded by the disciplinary authority as it is not practicable to conduct enquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, invoking Rule 25 (1) or Rule 25 of the Rutes 1991 itself is not warranted in the instant case. Therefore, the impugned order of removal dt.02-04- 2021 is set aside as none of the eventualities mentioned in Rule 25 of the Rules are not being attracted in the instant case. B. Moreover, while alleging stigma against the petitioner, the disciplinary authority is bound to conduct enquiry and only after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the respondents have to pass the impugned orders. But in the instant case, no such enquiry is conducted. Therefore, on these grounds, the impugned order dt.02-04-2O2t is tiable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. It is always open for the disciplinary authority to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs". E) The Counter affidavi th as been filed on behalf of the Resoon dent Nos.1 to 4 and in oartic lar oaraoraoh No.s is extracted h ere u nder: 1,4 sN'l \\ t,. No.23229-2023 "5. It is respectfully submitted that' L asinq on the departmental enquiry report the petit t ner was issued show cause notice by Principal Kakati'/ r medical college vide letter Rc' No'E2/3600/20 1 Dated 26.70.2021 proposing the major punis - Ient of Dismissal from service and to submit explanat on within 7 days of receipt of the notice duly following r.rncrple of natural JUstice. The petitioner in response to the show causenoticerequestedtoprovideacopyofltr:enquiry report and accordingly the petitioner was isst:d a copy of the enquiry report for submission of this '):planation through letter Rc.No.E2/360012021 Dated ' '122021' After recerpt of the enquiry report the pe 't t ioner on r ation and 14.12.2O2t has submitted a detailed exp the Princrpal, Kakatiya Medical College has p rr-sued the explanation of the basing on Principles of na ral justice and issued final orders imposing the major [ -rnishment of dismissal rrom service against the pet i ioner and issued dismissal order through Iroc Rc' No.E2l3600/2021 Dated 22'12'2021' Th: 'efore the action of the respondent is in accordance vr 'h law and no illeqality or illegality is committed in isuing' the imposed order. " ' SCU SSIO N AND coN CLUSION:- I

5. Learned c un etitio rm inl u on ll half t -fo h he II wln st bmissions:- 15 SN,I W .P .No.23229 2023 i) The petitioner, who is a Junior Assistant, is in no way connected with the issuance or validation of certiFicates by the appointing authorities of the concerned department and has been falsely implicated in a case involving the issuance and validation ot fake certificates in the name of Erragadda Mental Hospital to Government employees. i,) The petitioner was placed under suspension on 2I.Og.2O2O and, upon being served with a charge sheet, the petitioner submitted his expranation and preaded ignorance. Nevertheress, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 319 of 2020 on 31.12.2020 for the alleged commission of orfences punishabre under section s 420, 468, and 477 of rpc. iii) The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner were also based on the same set of allegations. However, a final report was submitted by the Sub_Inspector of police, p.S. Matwada, treating the case as a mistake of fact and accepting the said final report, the VI Additional ludicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, vide order dated lB.OS.2022 in Crime No. 319 of 2020 in R.C.C. No. 01/2021, passed a docket order accepting the Final report filed by the Sub_Inspector of police, p.S. Matwada. 16 5 N,l \ / , \ o.21229-2023 In view of the fact that a final report was sull 1 itted before iv) the concerned Court treating the case as a mistak: rlf fact' the disciplinary proceedings could not have beerr contin ued ' the imPugn(r( order dated However, to the Petitioner's shock' 22.72.202I vide Proceedings No R'C No' EZl3(t ol2027 was issued by the Principal, Kakatiya Medical College' l- ' rrumakotrda' imposing the malor punrshment i'e'' dismissal of 1-re petitioner f rom the service v) A show cause notice vide Rc'No'E2/360-t2O2l' daled 26.10.2O7L was issued by the 4th respondent tc he petitioner and the petitioner submitted a detailed explana - )n to the 4th respondent oo 14'12'2021 to the said show caus. notice issued to the petitioner' However' without considering tt (l explanation furnished in response to the said show cause Ir 'tice' a lnajor punishment of dismissal from service was inl rosed on the petitioner by the respondent No 4 with immediat€ )rfect' vi) The respondent No 4 failed to submitted by the petitioner and did details furnished in support of the explanation dated 14 12'2021' which verifY tt e exPlanation not consi J lr the sPecific petitlone' '; case in the pertained :o the charges framed against him' 77 S N,J w .P .No.23229 2023 vii) Without conducting disciplinary proceedings in accordance with due procedure, and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing or permitting the petitioner to examine witnesses to establish the truth, a major punishment of dismissal from service was imposed without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the rmpugned order is liable to be set aside. Bas do t u s a ln eaf or sa dsu bmiss ton s, f e n thel ear n n r o t d t that heoetitio ner i bvt eDe tion sentitled for the rel nthepr sentwrit oetitio n. as praved 6, Learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_iI appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalr of the respondents, in particular paragraph No.S, contended that, based on the departmental enquiry report, a show cause notice dated 26.IO.2021 was issued to the petitioner proposing the rmpositlon of the major punishment of dismissal from service, and an explanation was called for from the petitioner. Upon the petitioner's request, a copy of the enquiry report was furnished, and petitioner submitted expranation on 14.72.2027. After perusing the petitioner,s explanation, the principal, Kakatiya I i i 18 S N,,J \'/ ) No 23229. 2023 Medical College, passed the impugned order o1 dismissal on 22.12.2021 and the same is in conformity with t.i t principles of impugned l - ler does not natural justice and therefore' the warrant interference by this Court' Le rn dAs ist n G ve rnmen P e a mits that a req lar deDartmen tal en u r q ( r, however, t w 7 t n c ed and the etiti ner w sn I a reas na ble op DOrtunitv of hea rl nq, norwas le erml e re rm DU oned t the witnes ses. Neve rthe less, a o rw s as ed.

8. This Court opines that the petitioner is enti led to grant of relief and petitioner's services cannot be trl minated in a summary and arbitrary manner without com: ying with the principles of natural lustice and without conclr'r ltinq a regular enquiry- As borne on record' the order of re^ 'oval had been passed against the petitioner attributing miscon( uct on the part of the petitioner; however, the same had not : len established through a proper enqurry' Therefore' the impuqr ed order' dated 22.t2.2027 issued by the 4th respondent is in ( lear violation of Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, since the petiti( ner cannot be terminated unilaterally without due process' %iyffiffiffin,a*r* ;ffi.:;.iffiffi . i iffire,, are . ir{.} :il{5-:--1 4 19 SN,J W.P.No.23229 2023

9. Learned counsel appearing on behall of the petitioner submits that the decision in W.P. No.12902 of 202t, dated 76.12.2027, has been foilowed by this Court in W.p. No. 16772 of 2022 vide order dated 04.04.2022 and atso in W.p. No.26078 of 2021, vide order dated 29.11.2022. 10, Taking into consideration the orders of this Court passed under iden tica I circumstances in W.p. No.76772 of 2O22 and W.P. No.26078 of 202L, as well as the judgment in W. p. No.12902 of 2027, this Court opines that the impugned order issued by the 4rh respondent is bereft of reasons and passed in clea r violation of the mandatory procedure required for conducting a regular inquiry, hence, the impugned order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside

11. TA ING INT o DE T A) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_ff appearing on behalf of the respondents, 0 S N,I W I No.2 32 29-2023 c) The averments made in the counter affid I vit filed on behalf of respondent Nos'1 to 4 and ir particular' paragraph No.5 (referred to and extracted abo re)' d) The impugned proceedings dated 22"1''"2O2t vide R.C No.E2l36O0 /2O2L issued by Principa l' Kakatiya Medical College, Hanumakonda addresst d to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted at ove)' e) The order of this Court dated O8'O6'2(r::1 passed in W.P No.129 02 of 2021 (referred to and extra( ted above)' The relevant portion of the order of thi: Court dated f) O4.O4.2O22 passed in W'P No'L6772 of 2022 (referred to and extracted above)' S) The relevant portion of the order of thi; Court dated W'P No'26078 ot 2O2" ' (referred to 29.tt.2(l22 passed 'n and extracted above)' h) The discussion and conclusion as arriverl at para Nos's to 1O of the Present order' Th Wri ion is P d 2 1 2 2 d R.c llowed and he in tpuoned order t2L tss ued bv o.E2 3 oo :r h R s on den N 4is d r tn t eth n e enefi ts I 2L e ti t 5N,j W .P.No.23Z?g 2023 t r a e a t a e I e ti ar U h actiona qa 1nst th EDetition er, do so tn acco rdance to la w tn c nforml b rt ft he reSDonden ts tn en d o wtth the r a e le o na r s a t n n n ert e a H t lt wt u I t h d e e n costs. o f t Miscellaneous applications, iF any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To Hyderabad. Telangana at Hyderabad. SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Secretariat, State of 2. The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare Telangana State, 3. The District Collector, Hanumakonda District, Hanumakonda. 4. The Principal Kakatiya Medical College,, Hanumakonda, Hanumakonda 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES- il, High Court for the State of Telangana at 6. One CC to SRI T.D.PHANI KUtt/AR, Advocare IOPUCI 7. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] District. SA TKS Yt- HIGH COURT DATED:1010712025 C.('. TODAY '-l ,// /,' \ ,r'r:- C<o Lr- ,& o \ \ !-l I %, s" '1,. a\\- ,i r.f')i' -'./ ORDER WP.No.23229 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \D coR(d 9<rr -t6' ''