1. State of Telangana v. Smt. G. Sabitha

passed by the llon'ble High court of relangana, Hyderabad perrding disposal of the above writ a ppeal. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM, REp. FOR SRI B.VARA PRASADA RAO Counsel for the Sokr Respondent: SRI A.RAJENDRA BABU The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT $ THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No. 117O of2023 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Poul) Mr. Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel representing Sri B.Vara Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the appellants Mr. A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finallY J This intra Court appeal takes exception to the order dated

20.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.S147 of 2013. Brief facts of the case: 4 . The brief facts for adjudication of this matter are that the respondent (writ petitioner) was initially appointed on daily wage basis in November, 79a2. She was regtia:rized as Helper (Technical) with effect from 01.11.1988. She is a physically handicapped person having 55% disability. She rendered thirty years of service with appellant No.2 - department (hereinafter 2 referred to as, "the department"). The department issured a show cause notice dated 17.07.2012 to the respondent : -sking her explanation ON the ground that the School Tralsfer Certificate produced b1, her was not genuine. Thereafter, a chiTge sheet dated 04.0U .?-O1'), contatning similar charge was issu ed to her. The respondent li1ed her reply on 14.08.20 12 and rlenied the charge in totct. [)issatished with the reply of the respondent, the department irrstituted domestic enquiry and appointed tm Enquiry Officer. After crmpletion of the enquiry, the resporrdent was served with an order of punishment of removal from ser vice dated

25.11.2012. The respondent, without preferring n appeal, approached this Oourt by filing the writ petition.

5. The learneri Single Judge, by the impugned order dated

20.06.2023, inte,rfered with the punishment order on twin grounds. The first reason is that the Enquiry Officer's -eport was not supplied to the respondent before impositiorr of the punishment. Thus, by placing reliance on the Constitulion Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Direc'l:or, ECIL, Hyderabad v B,Karunakarr, the punishment was L eld to be r (1993) 4 SCC 72'.7 7t 3 illegal. Secondly, in paragraph 18 of the impugned order, it was held that the case of the prosecution was based on a communication dated 20.06.2012 sent by the Head Master, wherein the genuineness of the certificatq issued to the petitioner was called in question. Since the said Head Master did not enter the witness box . to prove the contents of the document dated

20.06.2012, the said document cannot become the reason to hold the respondent as guilty. Contentions of the appellants:

6. Learned counsel for the appellants raised two-fold submissions. Firstly, by placing reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in B'Karunakar (supra), it is submitted that mere non-supply of the enquiry report will not vitiate the domestic enquiry. In the event such report was not supplied, it could be supplied in the Court and, in turn, the delinquent employee would have been asked to show the prejudice in not getting the enquiry report. Straightaway setting aside the disciplinary proceedings on account of non-supply of enquiry report is not permissible in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in B.Karunakar (supra). Secondly, by placing relialce on "rf d -rdt* n*:L-u. j I 4 the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Ra.iasthan v. Bhupendra Sin6;hz, wherein various previous judgrrrents have been considered, it is submitted that the writ Court ca:rnot sit as an appellate Court to reweigh or reappreciate the evide'nce. Only in cases of serio .rs procedural impropriety which cau t, es serious prejudice to the other side, the interference ca-n be nlade. The sufficiency ol evidence cannot be the subject matter of judicial review. Thus;, the learned Single Judge has erred in interfering with the punishment on the ground that the concerned witness/Head Ma.ster did not enter the witness box and proved the document. Stand of the respondent:

7. Learned counsel for the respondent supported tt.e order of the learned Single Judge and placed reliance on ,.he recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh r,. State of Uttat Pradesh3. 2 2024 SCC Onl,ir.e SC 1908 3 2024 SCC Ont,ire SC 3325 '&..]&,, .4, n 5 B. The learned counsel for the parties have confined their arguments to the extent indicated above and no other point ts pressed. g. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Findings:

10. So far the hrst contention regarding the effect of non-supply of the enquiry report is concerned, we find substantial force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants' The learned Single Judge has reproduced the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B'Karunakar (supra). A careful reading of the said paragraph itself shows that only after furnishing the enquiry report and asking the delinquent employee to show the prejudice, if the Court comes to the conclusion that non-furnishing made any difference in the result of the case, it can set aside the punishment' In other words' the dicta of the Constitution Bench shows that mere non-supply of the enquiry report will not always result into setting aside the punishment. Instead, the enquiry report needs to be supplied to azJ I 6 the delinquent r:mpleyss and he is required to est ablish the prejudice being oaused to him because of non-supp. y. In the absence thereof, mechanically ald technically the p unishment orders cannot be interfered with merely because tl Le enquiry report was not supplied. The relevant paragraph reads .hus: "3 1 . Hence, n all cases where the enquiry officer,s re port is not furnishel to the delinquent employee in the disci:>linary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved er ployee if he has not already secured it before coming ,o the Court/Tribur-ral and give the employee an opportur rity to show ho.;v his or her case was prejudiced because of the non- supply ,rf the report. If after hearing the partier;, the Court/Tribr-u'ral comes to the conclusion that the non-r;upply of the re port would have made no difference to the ultimate hndings ancl the punishment given, the Court/Tr ibunal should not interfere with the order of punishmen _. The Court/Tribtural should not mechanically set aside thr order of punis,hmr:nt on the ground that the report u.irs not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The :ourts should ar.oi,f resorting to short cuts. Since it s the Courts /1'ribrLnals which will apply their judicial mincl to the question anrl give their reasons for setting aside ,rr not setting asidc the order of punishment, (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be nei iher a breach o[ the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable o rportunity. It is only if the Court/Tribuna finds that the fu:-nishing of the report would have m rde a difference to the result in the case that it should set asicie the order of prt1nisl66.,1. . . " 1 1. Thus, for this reason, the order of the learned Sir.Lgle Judge to that extent cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. I I i I I n 7

12. The second point on which interference has been made, in our opinion, goes to the root of the matter. The only charge against the respondent reads thus: "ARTICLE OF'CHARGE: That Smt. G.Sabitha, Helper (T), ALMU, NIMS, Hyderabad has submitted false School Transfer certificate and get emp lovment in APVCC."

13. The respondent, in turn, filed her reply, which reads thus: "Hyderabad, 14.8.2012. To The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Vikalangula Co-operative Corporation, Hyderabad. Respected Sir, Sub:- APVCC -Estt. - Public Services - Disciplinary action under Rules 74 of Service Bye Laws of the Employees of APVCC and under Rule 20 of APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991 - Charge Memo issued - Explanation submitted - Reg. Ref: Rc.No. 1052l2012lE,S'YI, dated 4.a.2O12 With reference to your letter referred to above I received Charge Memo issued by you, framing a charge that I submitted a false school transfer certificate and get employment in APVCC. I am herewith submitting explanation to the charge leveled against me. I respectfully submit that I am a physically handicapped person and I entered into the service of AP Vikalangula Co-operative Corporation on consolidated pay in the yeai lga2. I submit that ti1l then I am dischargLps mY I 8 duties to the utmost satisfaction of my superiors q,ith( ut any blemish or any remark whatsoever. I subntit that when I was asked to submit the J.roof of date o[ subrnitted the School Transfer Certificate issrred by the Hearl N'I lster, Primary School, Maheswaram, Ant :erpet, R.R. District- I submit that I hails from Ameerpet Viltage of Mahesu,aranr Mandal, R.R.District. I subnlit that I s,tudied upto 51-h :lass at the Primar5r School Ameerr;et of Mahesu,aranr Panchayat Sumithy, Ranga Reddy Distr ct and to that effe:t I obtained certihcate of transfer frcm the concernr:d Ileadmaster on 9.10.1984.1 submit that thre then Headmaster Issued the said certifrcate with the seal of the Primary Sch,lol and as such I submitted the same to 1 ou Sir for your kinrl perusal for sake of my date of birth. I r.;ubmit that it is m entioned In the Charge Memo that the Head Master, .,\me:rpet issued letter stating that the TC submitted by me is; fouLnd not correct. I submit that I have alsi) qone ' letter issued bv the Head Master dated throu h thr 20.6.2012 sL ating that verihed with school records and found not corrcct zLnd when he was not worked in the sch,rol. In fact I studiec I in the said school between 1970 to 1971 and I assed Sth class. In case of non availabilitv of r:ertain rq such period the present Head Master mieht records duri; sued such letter stating that found not r :orrect have been is rt worked there. The Head Master cateqc,ricallv as he u,zrs n, issued'lrans fer Certificate dated 9.10.1984 with school seal I submit that as I belong to a rea in with all parl.iculars which I borr and studied in the Primar5r School, Ameerpet rightly issue,<l the Transfer Certificate by the concernect Head Master. ]ien<:e the Certificate of Transfer issued by thr: then concerned Head Master is genuine and the same nray be considered ftrr my educational qualification as well rs my date of birth . I subrit that with reference to your letter referred to above issueci a Charge Memo dated 4.8.2012 u.it:r the following Che rge. Article of' Charge: That Smt. G.Sabitha, Helper (T), /].LMU, NIMS, Hyde:abad has submitted false School Tr,rnsfer Certificate and get employment in APVCC. 9 I submit that I hereby deny the charge leveled against me in Charge Memo dated 4.8.2012 for the reasons stated supra. I ".li-it that Secured job in APVCC by-producing all eligibility' I genuine documents of my qualifications and Iubmit that at present I am discharging my duties as helper (T), ALMU, NIMS, APVCC, Hyderabad to the utmost satisfaction of mY suPeriors. . I submit that for the reasons and submitted supra the Charge leveled against reference may kindly be dropped and pass orders for which I am ever grateful to you sir' explanation me in the appropriate Yours sincerelY, sd/- (G.SABITHA) Helper (T), ALMU, NIMS, APVCC, HYderabad. " (EmPhasis suPPlied)

14. The reply shows that the respondent did not accept the report of the Head Master dated 20'06'2012 on the basis of which the charge sheet has been issued' Admittedly, as per the case of the prosecution, pursuant to the letter of the Managing Director of the appellant No.2 dated 02'O4'2012, the Head Master' P.S.Ameerpet, wrote a letter dated 2O'O6'2012 inforrning that on verification of the school records, it was found that the School Transfer Certilicate submitted by the respondent was not correct' The charge is wholly based on this document dated 20'06'2012' The learned Single Judge opined that unless the said t l0 witness/Heacl M aster enters the witness box and prove the document, it calnot form part of evidence. The fin<ting of the learned Single Judge reads thus: "18. It is also relevant to mention here that the resp >ndent corporation initiated the disciplinary proceedings agai:rst the petitioner sr rleiv basinq on the report furnished l>v the dated 20.06.20 12 without conductine an.,'other Headmaster the respondent corporation has not exzrmined enquiry and nulnitlr of the certilicate produced by the petiticner by examlnln g t.re person who issued a particular cert L{icate. They are nc,t disputing the signature of the persoir who issued the particular certificate and the resp,rndent corporatLon has not summoned the original record fr<,m the School, Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that in the absence of any enquiry, contra evidence, imposed major punishment solely basing ,rn the letter lurnislred by the Headmaster dated, 12.06.20 i 2 and the same is contrary to 1aw." (Emphasis su cplied)

15. The pivotal question is whether in a departmenti Ll enquiry, the said documr:nt, which was the crucial documerrt for the prosecution to pr,tve its case, could have been relied ul)on by the Enquiry Officer. Ihe said document was required to br exhibited and should have been proved by the maker of the docrrment. In our opinion, this point is no more res integra. In rhe recent judgment in Satyendra Singh (supra), the Apex Court r onsidered its previous _judgnLents in the cases of Roop Singh Negi v. punjab 1l National Banka and State of Uttar Pradesh v Saroj Kumar I Sinhas and poignantly held as under: "14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi u' Punjab National bank ttzobsf z ScC szO, this court helt that mere production of )oar-".rt" is not enough, contents of documentar5z evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses' Relevant extract thereof reads as under:-

4. Indis levelled a uasl- t function. The oflicer t d The IlDOII has a drrtv to arrive ata consideration the materlals brought on record by the Darties. TheDu roorted evidence collected during investigation bv the investigatins officer taU the accuse dbv itself could not be a disciplinary treated to be evidence oroceedins. No witness was examined to Drove the said documents The man ment witnesses merelv tendered the documents ald did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance inter alia .was placed enqulry offrcer on the FIR which could not by the have been treated as evidence. ia the "pp"ff""t

15. We have noticed hereinbefore that tJre only basic .rrra..r.. whereupon reliance has been placed by the ;.q"i.y officer riras the purported confession made before the police According to the tV'G. appellani,' he was forced to sign on the sa.ld .o.rf"="io.t, as he was tortured in the police station The appeliant being an employee of the Bank' the said confession should have been proved' Sqme ewidence should have been brought on rqcotd tp si;;lhat-h; had indulsed tn stealine the IarT GE-To6E' -Ad-ittedlv. thete -q'as . no - dlr"ct GEE;EEIEn th"r. -"" ,"o iadire"t "Yidto9"' tn" report demonstrates that the T1r--. t."". "r oflicer had -.d" l-.p his mind to find him "nq"i.y g"iiry "" otherwise he would not have proceeded on o (2oo9) 2 scc 570 ' l2otol 2 scc 772 I t2 ttre b:Lsis that the offence was committed in such a rn.anll,lr that no evidence was left.

19. The judgment ald decree passed against tte resporLdent tn Narinder Mohan Arya case [(2006) 4 SCC 213 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 84Ol had-attarneC finalnr.. In the said suit, the enquiry report in tte disciplinary proceeding *." "o.riid.."d, the sarr: e rvas held to have been based on no evidence. The appelLmt therein in the aforementioned situatio I hled a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissec, This Oourt held that when a crucial finding 1ik : forgerl was arrived at on evidence which is noa-esf i r the e1 e of the law, the civil court would hav: -jurisdi,:tion to interfere matter. This Cour t sised that a fin n be arrived at brr FfiiI the en.q uirv oIIicer if there ls some evidence or record.,.." in the dins ca (trmphasis sul )plied)"

16. In vieu, of this judgment, there is no cavii of doub _ that even in the departmental enquiry which is quasi judicial in rrature, the prosecution cannot base its case solely on the basis of a document which has not be3n admitted by the other side. If the prosecution intended to prove that document, allegedly sent b), the Head Master, the o.ly oourse open was to summon the Head Master so that he enters ttLe witness box to exhibit the documt nt and is subjected to cross examination by defence. In the absen;e thereof, in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi (supra) and satyendra singh (supra), the said docrrmsnf, ry 13 no stretch of imagination' can be said to be a valid piece of evidence. Thus, minus this document' the prosecution's case is Iike a house of cards' The said document' in the absence of its authentication by the maker by entering the witness box' falls within the ambit of 'no evidence'' Even as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhupendra Singh (supra) on which learned counsei for the appeliants has placed heavy reliance' the writ Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in a case of "no evidence"' Thus' the learned Single Judge has taken a plausible view which is in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court' Thus' on this account' no interference is warranted' lT.Inviewoftheforegoingdiscussion,theappealfailsandis hereby dismissed. No order as to costs Miscellaneous Petitions Pending' if any, shall stand clos //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. KRISHNA UMAR TRAR DEPUTY RE SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CCto SRI B.VARA PRASADA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI A.RAJENDRA BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies BSR GJP HIGH COURT' DATED:2010312025 JUDGMENT WA.No.1170 of 2023 1:=:::: rATS ti1 0 4 II\ 'l 1E f.J , a .) a' / DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL, WITHOUT COSTS 5 )a