The High Court · 2025

Order

(C'RAL) This contempt case is filed seeking to punish the respondent for wilfitl disobedience rmd non-compliance of the interim order dated 08'08'2024 passed by this Court'm I.A. No.l of 2024 in W'P' No'20619 of 2024' 2 The interim order dated 08'0E'2024 reads as under:

"Mr. R la:rmilonth Reddy, lerned Assistant Govemment Pleader for H"-", br;G-rt""i; writtelr fusnrtions' submitted that petitioner - Party- In-Person has se 'a *p,"t"ooti"" tkough post on 29'08'2020 against ;'#il;,|,N"r.ito + -a,n", rrpse of four (4) yeas, present writ petition.is ;i,H^ffi ffiildorrr,Hxil.*T,'fl,,iilHr;.J:ffii: along with evidence/document with law. .i M:. Vimy Vemulq petitioner - Party-ln-Person'. submitted that the oiit" *TpfuiJl"dsU bv ht- ear.liil i1 available.with Gachibowli Police Station and he was utk"A to submit documentVevidence' in thal "*, *u rot concemed lnvestigating offrcer of ;nil-ioi- h; ,o"i""a " Gachibovili Police Station. In the cirpumstances, respondent No'9 - the -is House Officer' d'irected to receive the. documents/evidence by ,h" petitioner and conduct enquiry/investigation in accordance .Station c-rri#"rf pofi."-Sutioo, ;;;;i with law "

3. Hear.d Mr- Vinay Vemula, petitioner - party-in'person; Ms' Priyank4 learned As:;istant Government Pleader for Home' appearing for the respondent; and perused the material on record'

4. Mr. Habibullatr Khan, Inspector of Police' Gachibowli Police Station (respondent herein), who is present in the Court' stated that on receipt of I i i I ,,lr 2 complaint from the petitioner 12.09.2024. notice dated 21.09.2024 was issued to the Micnosoft Company at their office situated at Gachibowli. In response to the said notice, the Microsoft Company addressed letter daf€d 10.10.2024 stating thail 'the petitioner has voluntarily resigned from his sernices on

20.08:2018. The Microsoft Company accepted the resignation of the petitioner on the same day and based on his request, ex-gratia amount of Rs.7,l6,67Ot- (Rupees seven laktrs sixteen thousand six hundred *9 seventy or-rly) * 6een paid as full and final settlement to the petitioner. After resigning frour,the Mcrosoft Company and having waited for a period of twelve (12) montfts, the petitioner approached the Joint Labour Commissioner (JLC), Ranga Reddy Disficq on 30.0E.2019 seeking reinstatement into service. The petitio4er, having tendered resignation letter on 20.08.2018, approached the JLC and later filed complaint dated l2.Og.z}z4before the Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station.'

5. The respondent further stated that he collected several documents including the letter of appointment of the petitioner dated 10.06.2016 which contains terms and conditions with regard to his employment.

6. The documents filed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home along with the counter affidavit show that the letter dated 10.10.2024 was addressed by the Microsoft Company enclosing relevant documents and \ \ \ \ 3 details of software projects with which the petitioner was associated and also the details of other benefts provided to the petitioner like medical insurance, bonus, etc. Ihe respondent has also enclosed a copy of the complaint lodged by the petiti<ner before the JLC. The Microsoft company, by letter dated 20.0g.201g, intimated the petitioner that it is willing to pay the ex-gratia amount of Rs.7,l6,67\t- as fult and final settlement. Subsequently, the Microsolt Company has addressed another letter dated l4.l l '2019 where under it is srtated that the petitioner !s not a workman and he has lost his .workman' status under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1948 as he voluntarily rcsigned from his services; the allegation that the petitioner was forced to resign from the.company is false and baseless. per .ortra, the petitioner submitted that ttre investigation conducted by

7. the respondent is not in wittr the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of U-Pr. The investigation is not done in a fa[, transparent and impartial manner' In fact, the respondent has not conducted any enquiry to find out whether the resignation letter was issued vollntarily or not and moreover, as per the norms of the Company, the question of acceptance of the resignation letter on the same day is something unusual and suspicious. According to the petitioner, when a / ' Am, zotzsc 1515 , ,:.., i.. t. :+;1.; .ttf. .'::.,!i .:i-,+.::'r 4 resignation letter is;tendered by an employee, there are certain rules by which enqulry will be conducted to ascertain whether such resignation leffer is submitted voltrntarily or by coercion. The petitioner also stated that there are severat judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the manner in which the enquiry has to be conducted by the concerned officer was specified and-that there are serious lapses committed by the respondent.

8. The responden! who was present in the Court, was asked by this Court whether the enquiry report closing the case as 'action dropped' is a preliminary report or whether enquiry is still pending. Specifically, the respondent was asked about the remarks at column No.l I wherein it is shown that there is no prop€r evidence from the Microsoft Company and enquiry is still pending. However, the respondent clarified that it is only due to oversight it was so mentioned and whatever information was called for was received from the Microsoft Company and no furdrer enquiry is necessary.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the t dispute between the petitioner and his employer - Microsoft Company is within the realm of private law and the petitioner can avail proper remedy before the Civil Court. ,i i I t \ 5

10. The pe:titioner submitted that as per Column No.6 of the enquiry report, the date of visil of the respondent is 13.10.2024 which was a Sunday and holiday I l. However, it needs to be noted that there is a difference between enquiry and investigtrtion. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari's case (supra), it is incumbent upon the concerned Police Officer to c,tnduct enquiry whenever he/she is of the view that cognizable offence is not made out. At the pre-FIR registation stage, this Court cannot direct the concerned Police Officer to conduct enquiry in a particular manner. t I t2. The glievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has not visited the offrce of the Microsoft Company and not collected any information. However, on seeing the closure report of the respondent and the material collected by him during the enquiry, this Court is of the view that there is no violation or r { disobedience of the order dated 08.08.22024.

13. The lretitioner prayed that he may be given liberly to file his objections to the enquiry report submitted by the respondent. However, in the opinion of this Court, at this stage, when the preliminary enquiry has been conducted and action has been taken, it may not be necessary for the petitioner to submit his objections and no prejudice will be caused to him. If the petitioner is so advised, he is at liberty to approach concerned Magistrate by filing private / 6 complaint under Section 223(l) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit4 2023 or avail any other legal remedy before appropriate forum.

14. With the above obsenrations, this contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, misc,ellaneous applications, if any, pending in this contempt case, stand closed. ,,TRUE COPY" SD'. V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER I To,

1. Sri Mnay Vemula, S/o Shri.lagapathi ( partv -in-person) Occ Ex-lT Employee ' vijd,;'6'"iJh;: R' r liald,r, r,,riJio tanrk, HyderaSad 500028, relangana 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High court for the state of Telangana' [ouT] 3. Two CD CoPies kul/PSL I 1,.\ \ HIGH COURT DATED:24l1012025 ORDER CC.No.2570 ot 2024 t THE ,.J * 1 7 FEL a?fi i CLOSINC'IHE CONTEMPT CASE b b