WP/12194/2004 of G.SUDHAKAR, WARANGAL DISTRICT Vs LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING DEPT. HYD AND ANR on 30 December 2021

1. Government of Andhra Pradesh Labour, Employment Dept. Training & FactoriesDepartment, Secretariat, HyderabadDepartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The Depot Valagel Andhia [pradesh ]State Road Transport Corporation,Hanamkonda Depot, Hanamkonda, Warangal District...RESPONDENTSHanamkonda Depot, Hanamkonda, Warangal District...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court hay be pleasedto lssue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ Mandamus orcircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court hay be pleasedto lssue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ Mandamus orany other appropriate writ decraring the proceedings No. p3/104(43s)/g2. HNK.dated 17-08-'1982 in imposing the punishment of deflrment of inciements for adated 17-08-'1982 in imposing the punishment of deflrment of inciements for aperiod 4 years which shall have effect on future intrements is illegal, arbitrary andunjust; and consequently set aside the same.unjust; and consequently set aside the same.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT. K. UOAYA SRICounsel forthe Respondents: Ms. MOHO. ABDUL eUDDUS FOR

SRI B. MAYUR REDDY

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE I{ONOURABLE SMT. JT]STICE P. MADTIAVI DEVI

WRITPETITION NO.12194 C)[ 200,1

olll)t:. IT

This Writ Petition has been tiled by the petitioner under Anicle226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ more particularly onein the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedingsNo.P3/104(438)/82.HNK, dt.17.08.1982 in imposing the punishmentof deferment of increments for a period of 4 years which shall haveeffect on future increments, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust andconsequently to set aside the same and pase such other order or ordersas this Ilon'ble Court deems flt and proper.

2, Brieltacts leading to the filing olthis Writ Petition are that thepetitioner was appointed as a Cor-rductor in the 2"d respondentCorporation on 23.07.1975. While he was condr.rcting bus No.AAZ1 198 on route Bollikunta on 12.05.1982, there was a check and it wasfound that the petitioner has failed to issue tickets to 3 individualpassengers who boarded his bus at Mamnoor and found alightingwithout tickets at Rangashaipet, i.e., ex-stages 9 ta 7, [in ][spite ][of]collecting the requisite fare of Rs.0.40 [ps., ][each. ][Therefore, a ][charge]memo was issued to the petitioner levelling [the ][following ][3 ][charges:]

(l) For having failed to complete the ticket issucs befitre arrival [oJ ][the]next stage i.e., Stage No.7 [(Rungushaipet) v'hic'h ][is ][o ][misconducl]U/R 2\(xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees [(('onduct) ][Reg ][1963;]next stage i.e., Stage No.7 [(Rungushaipet) v'hic'h ][is ][o ][misconducl]U/R 2\(xxxii) of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees [(('onduct) ][Reg ][1963;]

(2) For havingfailed to issue tickets to 3 individual passengers in spiteof collecting the requisite Jare of Rs.0.40 ps. each, who boarded hisbus at Mamnoor and fountt alighting \)ithout tickets atRangashaipet ex.stdges 9 to 7, which is a misconduct U/R 2g(vi)(a)ofAPSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963;of collecting the requisite Jare of Rs.0.40 ps. each, who boarded hisbus at Mamnoor and fountt alighting \)ithout tickets atRangashaipet ex.stdges 9 to 7, which is a misconduct U/R 2g(vi)(a)ofAPSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963;

(3) For having failed to clo.se Ihe tray nunlher,s of all denominarionsagoinst stage.\ 9 to 7. v,hich i.r mi.rconcluct Li/R 2g(xxv) ofApSRTCEntployee .s (Conduct) Re g. 196-).agoinst stage.\ 9 to 7. v,hich i.r mi.rconcluct Li/R 2g(xxv) ofApSRTCEntployee .s (Conduct) Re g. 196-).

The petitioner subrnitted his explanation. Hou,,ever, the 2",r respondentwas not satisfied with the same and imposecl the punishment ofpostponement of annual increments which fall next due for a period of4 years which shall also have effect on future increments by orderd1.17.08.1982. By the very same order, a show_cause notice was also;issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why the suspension periodt*r,,n* should not be treated as [.not ]on duty,, which it will beconsidered that the petitioner has no explanation to offer and finalorders would be passed based on the evidence available on record.Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed an Appeal which wasre.iected and thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application. Thesaid application was also disu-rissed. Thereafter, the petitioner raised adispute before the Labour Court challenging the enquiry and also hepreferred an Appeal to the Govemment, which was disposed ofconfirming the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.Against the order of punishment, this Writ petition is filed.

3. Sri Anurag Bajpai, leamed counsel representing Smt. K.udayasri, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted trrat after the enqulry was conducted, the petitioner was not supplied with theenquiry report, but punishment of stoppage of 4 increments withfuture effect has been imposed, which is in gross violation of thefuture effect has been imposed, which is in gross violation of theprinciples of natural justice. Further, he also submitted that thepunishment of stoppage of 4 increments with future effect is a majorpunishment and is disproportionate to the gravity of the chargeslevelled agaihst the petitioner.levelled agaihst the petitioner.

4. Ms. Mohd. Abdul euddus, learned counsel representing SriB.Mayur Reddy, learned counser for the 2nd respondent, on the otherhand, supported the averments in the counter affidavit and submittedthat the petitioner had participated in the efiquiry proceedings and thepunishment awarded was a minor punishment and therefbre, there wasno requirement to supply copy oi- the encprin, report to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel tbr the petitioner placed reliance upon adecision of the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Unionof India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khanl, wherein it was heldthat the delinquent employee is entitled to copy of enquiry reportsubmitted by the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority and tomake representation against it and non_fumishing of the report to thedelinquent would be violative of principles of natural justice renderingthe final order invalid.

,Plr) r scc 588

6, Having regard to the rival contentions [and ][the ][material ][on]record, this Couft finds that whether it is a minor or majorpunishment, principles of natural [justice ]require that the enquiryreporl should be provided to the delinquent employee in order [to]enable him to raise objections or make [representation against ][the]enquiry repoft. As held by the lion'ble Suprerne [Courl ]in [Union of]India and othcrs Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [(1 ]supra), non-supply [of]the same amounts to violation of the [principles ][of ][natural ][justice ][and]vitiates the final order ol punishrnent. in [paras ]15 to 19, the [Hon'ble]Suprer-ne Court held as under:

,Plr) r scc 588

6, Having regard to the rival contentions [and ][the ][material ][on]record, this Couft finds that whether it is a minor or majorpunishment, principles of natural [justice ]require that the enquiryreporl should be provided to the delinquent employee in order [to]enable him to raise objections or make [representation against ][the]enquiry repoft. As held by the lion'ble Suprerne [Courl ]in [Union of]India and othcrs Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [(1 ]supra), non-supply [of]the same amounts to violation of the [principles ][of ][natural ][justice ][and]vitiates the final order ol punishrnent. in [paras ]15 to 19, the [Hon'ble]Suprer-ne Court held as under:

" 15. Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme ofArticle 3l 1(2) of the Constitution [has ][nothing ][to ][do with ][providing]ofa copy of the report to the [delinquent ][in ][fhe ][matter ][of ][making ][his]representation. Even though the [second ]stage [of ][the inquiry ][in]Article 3 I 1(2) has been [abolished by ][amendment, ][the delinquent ][is]still entitled to represent against lhe [conclusion ][of ][the ][Inquiry]Oflicer holding that the charges or some [of ][lhe ][charges ][are]established and holding the delinquent [guilty ][of ][such charges. ][For]doing away with lhe eJfect of the enquiry [report ][or ][to ][meet ][the]recommendalions c;f the lnquiry O/ficer [in ][lhe matter ][of ][impo.rition]Article 3l 1(2) of the Constitution [has ][nothing ][to ][do with ][providing]ofa copy of the report to the [delinquent ][in ][fhe ][matter ][of ][making ][his]representation. Even though the [second ]stage [of ][the inquiry ][in]Article 3 I 1(2) has been [abolished by ][amendment, ][the delinquent ][is]still entitled to represent against lhe [conclusion ][of ][the ][Inquiry]Oflicer holding that the charges or some [of ][lhe ][charges ][are]established and holding the delinquent [guilty ][of ][such charges. ][For]doing away with lhe eJfect of the enquiry [report ][or ][to ][meet ][the]recommendalions c;f the lnquiry O/ficer [in ][lhe matter ][of ][impo.rition]o;[ punishntenl. furnishing a [copy ]of [the ][reporl ][becomes necessary]and to hove lhe proceeding completed [by ][using some material]behind the back of the [dclinquent ][is ][a ]Potilion [not ][countenanced ][by]fair [procedure. l|thile ][b1t ][lov' opplicalion ][of nalurol .iustice could ][be]totally rulerl out or tnmcoled. nolhing [ha.s ][heen ][done ][here ][v'hich]coultl be taken as keeping nntural [juslice oul of ][the ][proceedings]and the series o.f [pronouncentents ][of ][lhis ][Courl ][making ][rules ][of]natural [justice ]applicable [to such ][an ][inquiry ][are not alfected ][by ][the]Forty-second [Amendment. ][We, ][therefore' ][come ][to ][the ][conclusion]that supply of a copy of lhe [inquiry ][report ][along ][with]recommendation, if any, in [the ][matter ofproposed punishment to ][be]and to hove lhe proceeding completed [by ][using some material]behind the back of the [dclinquent ][is ][a ]Potilion [not ][countenanced ][by]fair [procedure. l|thile ][b1t ][lov' opplicalion ][of nalurol .iustice could ][be]totally rulerl out or tnmcoled. nolhing [ha.s ][heen ][done ][here ][v'hich]coultl be taken as keeping nntural [juslice oul of ][the ][proceedings]and the series o.f [pronouncentents ][of ][lhis ][Courl ][making ][rules ][of]natural [justice ]applicable [to such ][an ][inquiry ][are not alfected ][by ][the]Forty-second [Amendment. ][We, ][therefore' ][come ][to ][the ][conclusion]that supply of a copy of lhe [inquiry ][report ][along ][with]recommendation, if any, in [the ][matter ofproposed punishment to ][be]

inJticted would be within the rules ol natural iustice [and ][the]delinquent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply [of ][a ][copy]thereof. The Forty-second Amendment [has ]not brought [about ][1ny]change in this position.

16. At the hearing some argument had been advanced [on]the basis ofArticle l4 ofthe Constitution, namely, that [in ][one ][set ][of]cases afising out of disciplinary [proceedings ]furnishing of [the ][copy]of the inquiry report would be insisted [upon ]while in the [other ][it]would not be. This argument has no foundation inasmuch [as where]the disciplinary authority is the Inquiry Officer there is [no report.]fle becomes the frst assessing authority to consider the [evidence]directly Jitr finding out whelher the delinquent [is ][guilty ]and liqbleto be punished. l:ven olherv'i:e, the inquirie: t,hith ure direcllyhuttlled by the tlisc iplinar.t, oLtthority und lhose [u,hich ]ure allowedro be handled by the lnquir) O//ice r can eusilv be c'la:siJied [into]t')o separale groups ['one, ]v.here there is no inquiry report [on]account of the Jact that the disciplinary authorily is the lnquiryOfficer and inquiries where lhere is a reporl on [account ]of [the ]factthat an officer other than the disciplinary aulhority has [been]constituted as the Inquiry Officer. That itselfwould be [a ][reasonable]classiJication keeping away the application of Article 14 of theConstitution.

17. There have been several decisions in dffirent HighCourts which, following the Forty-second [Amendment, have ][taken]the view that it is no longer necessary to furnish a copy of theinquiry report to delinquent fficers. Even on some occasions [this]Court has taken that view. Since we have reached a dffirentconclusion the [judgments ]in the dilferent High Courts taking thecontrary view must be taken to be no longer laying down [good ]law.l{e have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or u largerbench of this Court taking this view. ThereJbre, the conclusion tothe contrary reached by any two-Judge bench in this Court willalso no longer be taken to be laying down good lcnr. but this shallhuvc pro.spcc'tivc trpplictrtion untl no puni.:ltment intposetl .shull bectpan to challenge on thi.s gt'otuttl.

18. We muke it cleqr thot whereyer there has been unlnquiry Officer and he has furni.shed a report to the disctplinaryauthority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquentguilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particularlnquiry Officer and he has furni.shed a report to the disctplinaryauthority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquentguilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particularpunishment or no4 the delinquent is entitled to a copy of suchreport and will also be entitled to make a representation against it,d [he ][so ][desires, ][and ][non-furnishing ]of [the ]report would amount toviolation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liablet o c hal lenge he r e aft er.report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it,d [he ][so ][desires, ][and ][non-furnishing ]of [the ]report would amount toviolation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liablet o c hal lenge he r e aft er.

19. On the basis of this conclusion, the appeals aredismissed und the di.sciplinarr action in erery case is ,ret a.eide.There shall be no order.for cosls. We u,ould clariJy that thisdecision mu.v not preclude the di,sciplinary authorily.fi"om revi.singthe proceeding and continuing \.itll it in accordance yilh law fronldismissed und the di.sciplinarr action in erery case is ,ret a.eide.There shall be no order.for cosls. We u,ould clariJy that thisdecision mu.v not preclude the di,sciplinary authorily.fi"om revi.singthe proceeding and continuing \.itll it in accordance yilh law fronllhe stage oJ'supplt' of thc inqtrirt' relort in cose.r t,here dismi.s.sttl orremoval [y'as ]tha punishment.removal [y'as ]tha punishment.

7, Since facts and circumstances in this case are also similar.respectfully following the same, this Courr holds that the punishmenrorder passed by the respondents consequent to the enquiry report, isnull and void.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.

9, Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

SD/- V,KAVITHAASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]lL.SECTION OFFICER

//TRUE COPY//

To,.1 . Government of Andhra Pradesh Labour, Employment Training [& ][Factories]Deoartment, Secretariat. [[HVderabad]].1 . Government of Andhra Pradesh Labour, Employment Training [& ][Factories]Deoartment, Secretariat. [[HVderabad]]

Deoartment, Secretariat. [[HVderabad]]- , , ff5?jU;i'iil;;;q;;, [[fi;hiaFraoesn ]][state Rotd rranspod ][corporation']- , , ff5?jU;i'iil;;;q;;, [[fi;hiaFraoesn ]][state Rotd rranspod ][corporation']

- , , ff5?jU;i'iil;;;q;;, [[fi;hiaFraoesn ]]niir",r[i.oiDe"pot, na namt<onda, War-angaloistrictniir",r[i.oiDe"pot, na namt<onda, War-angaloistrict niir",r[i.oiDe"pot, na namt<onda, 3 6;; cCi;b.lt [K. ][udava ][Sri' Advocate tof^u-g1^.];. o;; cc io [sti ][B. ][Mavui ][Reddv, ][Advocate ][[oPUC]]5. Two CD CoPies6. 'wOne Spare [CoPY]

HIGH COURT

DATED:3011212021

ORDERWP.No.12194 ot 2004

ALLOWING THE WPWITHOUT COSTS,FA

l [frf: ][o ][i^i, ]to.)..))31 JAll [2022]