Telangana High Court
WP/27734/1997 of N.Anjaneyulu, Vs Deputy General Manager, on 30 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 27734 of 1997 Between: N.Anjaneyulu, S/o. M.Subbaiah. R/o. Dachur Village, Kaluvai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO
WRIT PETITION NO : 27734 of 1997
Between:
N.Anjaneyulu, S/o. M.Subbaiah.R/o. Dachur Village, Kaluvai Mandal,Nellore.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 Deputy General Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
2 Divisional Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Nellore.
3 Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Dachuru Branch,
Kaluvai Mandal, Nellore.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call forthe records relating to the impugned proceedings in Ref.No.1816/PSWW/ZOH/97dated 22/09/1997 issued by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same asillegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India andprinciples of natural justice and pass such other and further orders as deemed fit andproper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.M.PRABHAKAR RAO
Counsel for the Respondents : MR.K.SRINIVASAMURTHY
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
Heard both sides.
The petitioner herein, who has been employee with the respondent-Bank,filed this writ petition, inter alia, seeking to assail the impugned order dated22.9.1997, wherein his services were sought to be terminated. The case of thepetitioner is that the impugned orders are being passed on the ground that thepetitioner had suppressed his caste and falsely claimed to be ST candidate thoughhe actually belonged to BC community and, therefore, the termination. His furthercase is that he belongs to BC community and at no point of time, he claimed to beST and the impugned orders are being passed without there being any notice orenquiry, which is opposed to the principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writpetition.
Contesting the case of the petitioner, it is submitted by the learned counsel forthe respondent-Bank that the initial appointment order itself contemplates that in theevent the caste certificate is found to be false on verification, the services are liableto be terminated without notice. It is further contended that since the petitioner wasfound to have belonged to BC community, his services were terminated.
Considering the submissions and the material available on record, the onlyquestion that calls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the impugnedorders of termination of service are illegal.
There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was terminated from servicessince he suppressed his caste. The case of the petitioner is that since his inceptioninto service, he claimed to be BC and never sought any appointment on the basis ofST certificate.
Be that as it may, on a reading of the impugned order, it is clear that before making such allegation that he falsely claimed appointment on the basis of STcertificate, the petitioner has not been given any notice nor there is any enquiryconducted prior thereto. Though it is contended that the petitioner, being only aprobationer, no such enquiry is contemplated and further in the appointment orderitself, it was mentioned that no such notice need be given. It is now well-settled thateven in case of probationary or temporary appointment, especially where anyimputation is made, necessarily it calls for enquiry and also due notice to theaffected parties.
In this case, no such notice nor any enquiry is forthcoming. It is to be held thatthe impugned order is totally in the teeth of the principles of natural.
Conclusion
Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are setaside. It shall be however open to the respondent to pass fresh orders in accordancewith law, after giving notice, opportunity of hearing and holding necessary enquiry.No order as to costs.
30.12.2004
CVM
That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.
Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on thisThursday the Thirtieth day of Two thousand and four.
REGISTRAR
To
1 The Deputy General Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad.
2 The Divisional Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Nellore.
3 The Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank, Dachuru Branch, Kaluvai Mandal, Nellore District. Kaluvai Mandal, Nellore District.
4. 2 CD copies.