The relevant judgments of the Sr-rpr-er-,re court are Anant R. .Kutkarni v. y.p.Education Societyz a

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order passed in w.P.No.24093/2008, Dated. 05.06.2023 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal tE I i:' 1 IA NO i1 oF 202s Betweern: E] Ram Mr:han. S/r hler, Nalg,:nda Di.i B v""" Lingam' School Asst (Maths), ()sl High school, AND .....PET|floNER/RESPONDENT '1 . The Secretaru ro Gr , ilF [+ur#;lcll"i?.'u gi,f"#, *B: fi ffi:m iIIEE8?lLlfl .,1i;:l"T'"",.b",if :i.^fi::Sx6,"gr[i'o?,i[,0 e n'i G o ve rn m e nt or

5. Diocesarr Edur;ational Secretary, CSI Karimnagar Dioces, Karinnagar. ...RESpONDENTS/AppELLI,NTS Nos. 1to4 4t ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT Pertition uncer section 151 cPC praying that in the circum stances stated in the affidavit fired irr support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim orrl-'r dt,2or12t2o24 in writ Appeat No.14151202:4and dismiss the writ appeal as de,roid of merits. Counsel .tbr the Appeilant: SRl. S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER REP ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: Ms. C. VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N.p. SANGAM The Court made the following: ORDER r 1a THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT APPEAL No.1 4L S of2O24 JUDGMENT (Orall: (Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) Withtheconsentfinallyheard.SriS.RahulReddy'learned Special Government Pleader representing the iearned Additional Advocate General, for the appellants and Ms' C' Vani Reddy' learned counsel for respondent No 1'

2. This intra-Court appeal assails the order dated O5'06'2023 in W.P.No.24O93 of 2O08, whereby the petition filed by respondent No.1 herein, was allowed and a-lso the order dated O6'09'2024 \n I.A.No.1 of 2024 (Review Application) in W'P'No'24093 of 2008' whereby the review application filed by the State' was dismissed'

3. Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for appellants/ State raised singular submission that a plain reading of the impugned order dated 05'O6 '2023 of the learned Single Judge makes it clear that the reasons for interference in the Departmental EnquLry and punishment are based on violation of the principles of natural justice- Learned Single Judge opined that no reasonable opportunity was provid'ed to respondent No'1 herein. Neither copy of the vigilance report dated O5'01'2006 was 2 surlplied t'r him nor he had the opportunitv io .rcsr..-examine the witnesses. Learned Single Judge further opined ihr,-t respondent No. i herein !./i1s not given free cha,ce to lead e'icler-ce in respect of the chargr:r; and to put relevart questions b1. ,,,72r. of cross_ exa,minaticn. Respondent No. t herein was n ot provided opprortunit'y tc, produce any witness and lead evirlence in his defi:nce.

4. It is further submitted that based on the rriolation of prirrcipiesr oi natural justice, punishment orcier dater.. 02.o2.2oog ald appellatr: order 26.Og.200g were set aside. .lt is fairly contenderl by the learned Special Government plezrrler that the Departmenr, is; not aggrieved by the order of the lelrmed Single Judge to the extent learned Single Judge found iault in the procedural part of the Departrrrental Enquiry. In r ther words, learned S percie:l Government pleader fairly admitteci i.hat learned SingJe Ju dge \vas justified in interfering in the D epartmental Enqrliry or-r vio lation of principles of natural justice, br_it the proper course wc,u [d ]rave been to permit the Departmenl_ to conduct further enquiry from the stage the elror crept in and pass a fresh orde.r in ac.corda.nce with law. Learned Single Judge ccmmitted an error in rejet.tir 11 the review application. t d ( f, 3

5. Learned counsel for respondent No'l submits that no fault can be found in the order of the iearned Single judge in setting aside the punishment and appellate order for violation of principles of natural justice' By placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Cotrrt in the case of Marwari Balika v' Asha Srivastava 1, it is urged that in the said case' since order was stigmatic one, the order was interfered with ald matter was not remitted back for conducting further enquiry'

6. Learned counsel for the parties confined their arguments to the extent ind-icated above and no other point was pressed' Indisputedly, the only question before this Court is whether 7. while hnding fault in Departmental Enquiry and setting aside the punishment and appellate order' it was proper for the learned Single Judge to direct for reinstatement of respondent No'1 herein with full back u,ages. Putting it differently, when respondent No' 1 herein was not exonerated on merits and interference was solely made on technica-t grounds i'e'' on violation of principles of natural justice, whether it was justihed in directing reinstatement { I Civil AppealNo.9166 ol2013, dated 14022ol9 4 wi1-h back u'irges n ithout permitting the Departme irt to conduct further enquiry from the stage natural justice -rvas br:.ached. B. The leg;J journey in this aspect needs tc be considered. The same woull show that when enquiry and punishmeri is interfered witir sorerl' o -r the ground of violation of prir-rciple s of natural Just.ice, prcpe - course is to set aside the enquin_ from ths slags errcr crept in and permit the employer to conCuct further. enquiry from that slagt: The relevant judgments of the Sr-rpr-er-,re court are Anant R. .Kutkarni v. y.p.Education Societyz a::d State of Uttar Pradesh rr. Rajit Singhs. 9 .trr. .o,i.i In, Anant R. Kulkarni (supra), it u,as heid as Lrn{ er: ''13. It is i. sertled legal proposition that once the cc,trt sets aside an or(tirr of p,,"ij_r-"r,ior, ;". ;.ou*#,;iar *re :nquiry \r'as n()r pr,rperly conducted, "r.i"ii ,", ,. e'erely precluclc rh. srnpl6y6r- from holding ,rr.'inqrr:li'i" ac( , rclance rvith la,r. lt rrust remit the .""" .o.n...rl.d"," ,,* dis, piinary a.uthoritl, [o (]onduct the enquiry f..- tfr. p.irt Lhat it stood vitiated, anrl to conctu.ie. thL same i"-;;.;;;;;.," ui.h taw. Flowever. re:.orrinq I o such,a .;"; d.;;;:';;:,.t r1.rr,, qravilr of delinqrler<v involved. Thr:,,th9 colrt niust .rxar:ine the *it nragnittrde >f misconduct " dcri tquent enployr:e. Ir is in view of this ""irli"),.r't l"als rrre not ;iffi:5i:li' HiT'1.n"arge-sheet "'d ;'i;;; ai".,,rinai, urb..-.,,,io,,. J *- ""o" iu,*i! g"Til'fJ:#*i:. r i; ;, #; sr!.e 72',t : ArR lee4 sc t^ol4l:!i;;" M;;'il;rachaulya r,. S.M. Sclroot ior Cirts tt2oo_2t^ioscC )0s1,,"u.;.'S;",. S1 g. Co. Lrd. v. r.:..i. i,rtndev lrioos)€ scc rA;;iunior ri ;r ctia v. y.S. sadhrr lr.2co8i t: scc'go: ol* ;;o6$ ,;,ii:l . aileged .g"ir,"t -t'hat '1zo t:.1 o scc sts ' (2022) tj scc 2s 1 \ 1 -(. 5

10. In, Rajit Siugh (supra), the Supreme Court held as under: "l2.\n LICv. A. Masilamoni ILIC v ' A' MasilamanL (2013) 6 s-cC sso : (2013) 2 scc (L&S) 6081 , which was also pressed behalf of the appeilants before the High Court' i.rto ""*i."'on it is observed in para 16 as under : (SCC p' 536) -SCC '16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the court sets aside an order of punishment' on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted' Ihe court cannot reinstate the employee lt must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the sarne' (vrd. eAtu. e. Kat'unokar IECIL v ' B' - -Karunakor ' irso:t + scc 727 : 1993 SCC (L&s) 11841 ' Hiran 'Magee BLnttachoryga v' S M School for G[rls lHiron iigee nhatta.h"rgaa v' S M Sctlo.o^l-for.Gils.' (2oo2l 293 :2OO3 SCC (L&S) 10331 ' U'P State Spg' 10 Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandeg ILI'P' State Spg' Co' Ltd v' R'S' Pandey, (2005) 8 sdi zo+ : 2oo6 SCC (l*'s) 781 and' tliion of India v Y'S' Sadhu lunion of Indiav' Y S' i"it*, lzoozy 12 scc 30 : (2009) 1 scc (L&s) 1261')" 13. From the impugned jirdgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears tlhat when the aforesaid submission decision was pressed into service' the High ""i *." c"".t r-r"" not considered the iame on the ground that the otn., otlt""r" involved in respect of the same incident are exonerated and/or no action is taken against them' Applying ifr" f.* hid down in A. Masilamani ILIC v' A' MasilamanL tzoiii o scc seo : (2013) 2 scc {L&s) 6081 to the facts of the case on hand, we are of ihe opinion that the Tribunal as well ""?"- llrgn iourt ought to have remanded the matter to the conduct the enquiry from the stage it Jl"ipfi."iv authority by the High Court i.r-.rot .fto*ing further proceedingi from the stage it stood "i."d "lri"La. i.e. ifter the issuance of the charge-sheet' is "iti"rla unsustainable. 14. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, the ftndings recorded by the Tribunal as well as the ffigft ' Cor-,., qri"hit'g and. setting aside the order of pr?i"nl".li-po"ed bl' the disciptinary auth,ority by applying ihe docrrine oi equatity is here-by quashed- 3nd sel aside' . flowever, as the enquiry is found to be vitiated Therefore, the order ^fore"aid .passed -to ^t'J i" fo""a its: ,' 6 be ir.r 'ricla tion of the principles of natural justir:e liir smuch as it is :t1le 3:d that the relevant documents menttol ed in the chargr:-sh,:et were nor supplied to the delinquer:t rfficer, we remar d tlLe matter to the disciplinary authcrirv to .onduct a fresh enrp,riry from the stage it stood vitiated Le after the issuarrcc of the charge-sheet anll to proceed lurthe,: with the enqrtirw irfter furnishing all the necessa.iy (..ocuments mentioncc in the charge-sheet and alter foiir:,.,r,ing due prin,:iple:; of natural justice. The aforesaid exercis,t shall be compl:terl within a period of sk months fror n toclay." 1 1. Th,.s is (rqually settled that in the cases rvhere the further en,quiry is cii-r:cted, the question of reinstatement ilr interregnum period does r ot arise. The question of reinst.rtemenr or final relief would depenc. on the outcome of further enquir.". The same principle wil i govern the question of back \4ragi,.s and other ber-refits. In other \vords, the .cutcoiTre of further enquiry r.r.ill decide th,: ,luantum of punishment a_rld alsc r.:onsequential benefits lif anl ).

12. So fair, the judgment of Marwari Balika (supra), on which reliance is pr i166d by the learned counsel lbr res;;ondent No.l herein is conr:,:rned, a careful reading of it shorvs th at it is not a case of DeDartmenta-l Enquiry. Instead, it is a case .f termination of zr probat.iorLr:r b1, issuing a stilpnatic order. Thereribre, the said judgmenr is o no use lor respondent No. I herejn. f i i I 7

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aside to the extent direction was issued for reinstatement with back wages. Instead, the Department may proceed against respondent No.1 from the stage of recording evidence of prosecution and the appellants shall complete the Departmental Enquiry in accordance with law within six months from the date of production of copy of this judgrnent Failing which the right to conduct enquiry shall stand forfeited. The consequential benefits will depend on the outcome of the enqu1ry.

14. With the aforesaid, the j.rr.pugned orders dated 05.06.2023 and 06.09.2024 in W.P.No.24093 of 2OO8 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.24093 of 2OO8 stand modified to the extent indicated above. The Writ Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed { //TRUE COPY// SD/.K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT ECTTON OFFICER To, 1 2 J 4 5 C) 7 B I iffitq"ft ,ti*i.[ti"ifli:*,If,fiiff+,5r..*',-",'*G'vernmen"r i[:tfgtesltetll[:["*Z",e''ltL't+HP[g'8il;hcourtrorthestateor Et'f:TliilyllmBli mx""nrssvg : Two CD CoPies l BM Erq. r, HIGH GOURT DATED:1 210212025 JUDGMENT cl ',i WA.No.1415 of 2024 t I :'t. r, ,. S .1...i t o ,tr r PB 2025 2 Or., (. .'.. / n .,,/ .,,. PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS /, /rn ,/t I rt- I f ! I I