IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) _______________, THE ________________ DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.30847 OF 1998 Between: A.ramesh S/o.Venkat Subbaiah Office of the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Erramanzil, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer (R&B), Dargametta, Nellore. 2 The Executive Engineer (R&B), Nellore. 3 Veguru Ramadassu, S/o.Janakiram Reddy, Kothoor, Kovur Mandal, Nellore Dist. 4 The Honourable Lok Ayukta of A.P., Represented by its Registrar Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to declare the order passed by the Honourable Lok Ayukta of A.P in Complaint No.621/97, dated 19-09-1997 and 27-11-1997 as illegal, arbitrary and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and set- aside the same; consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to take any action in pursuance of the orders dated 19-09-1997 and 27-11-1997. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.S.R.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MRS.A.BALA BARATHI The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.30847 OF 1998 O R D E R (Per Honourable Sri Justice P.V.Sanjay Kumar) The petitioner challenges the orders dated 19.09.1997 and 27.11.1997 passed by the Honourable Lok Ayukta of Andhra Pradesh, the fourth respondent herein, in Complaint No.621 of 1997 on the ground of gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Roads and Buildings Department of the State, vide Memo No.41185/ Services.IV-3/97, dated 29.10.1997, basing upon the remarks made by the Honourable Lok Ayukta in the impugned orders. The assertion of the petitioner is that he was never put on notice about the enquiry undertaken against him by the Honourable Lok Ayukta in pursuance of Complaint No.621 of 1997. Hence, the ﬁndings against him in the impugned orders, which form the foundation for the initiation of the disciplinary action, are unsustainable in law being in violation of the principles of natural justice. A Contractor, Veguru Ramadassu, the third respondent herein, ﬁled Complaint No.621 of 1997 before the Honourable Lok Ayukta alleging non-payment of his dues for certain works executed by him for the Roads and Buildings Department of the State. Basing upon the report of the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Kavali, Nellore, indicting the petitioner of culpability in so far as the sanctioning and processing of the subject works are concerned, the Honourable Lok Ayukta in his order dated 19.09.1997 recorded the following finding: “From this report, it is seen that the main culprit is A.Ramesh, the Asst.E.E., who did things unauthorisedly and beyond his powers. It looks as if there is some collusion between the contractor complainant and the Asst.E.E., A.Ramesh. It is just and proper that PS.1 and 2 take disciplinary action against the Asst.E.E., and take steps to recover the damages and loss caused to the Government. This sort of high- handed behaviour by an Asst.E.E., should not be allowed to go unpunished. The complainant has to blame himself for the delay in payment of the bills for the works done by him. He may seek his remedy in a Civil Court impleading the Asst.E.E., who illegally authorised him to do the work. This complaint is closed. The complainant is directed to approach the Civil Court and seek his remedy particularly against the Asst.E.E.” It appears that the Contractor sought a review of the above order dated 19.09.1997 and the Honourable Lok Ayukta, ﬁnding no material to modify his earlier order, dismissed the petition by his order dated 27.11.1997. Admittedly, the petitioner was not given any notice with regard to the adverse report submitted by the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Kavali, Nellore District, in the course of hearing by the Honourable Lok Ayukta in Complaint No.621 of 1997. Without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut this adverse report, the Honourable Lok Ayukta seems to have accepted the same as the biblical truth and stigmatised the petitioner, as is evident from the ﬁndings recorded by the Honourable Lok Ayukta extracted supra. The verity of the report submitted by the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Kavili, Nellore District, had to be tested by putting the same to the petitioner and in the absence of such a procedure, the ﬁnding of the Honourable Lok Ayukta, one sided as it is, cannot be sustained. Needless to state, condemning a man unheard constitutes a basic transgression of the principles of natural justice and more speciﬁcally the rule of ‘audi alteram partem’. We draw support for this conclusion from the judgment of the Apex Court in CANARA BANK V/s. V.K.AWASTHY [1], wherein the Honourable Supreme Court, after a thorough and exhaustive analysis of the growth and ediﬁcation of the principles of natural justice, observed that it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This according to the Supreme Court, is one of the most important principles of natural justice being an incarnation of the basic norm that ‘justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done’. The impugned orders being in gross violation of the principles of natural justice are unsustainable in law and are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. -------------------------------- GODA RAGHURAM, J. ----------------------------------- P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J. ____NOVEMBER, 2008. PGS (PD) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.30847 OF 1998 (Per Honourable Sri Justice P.V.Sanjay Kumar) ________ NOVEMBER, 2008 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.30847 OF 1998 (Pre-delivered order of the Bench prepared by the Honourable Sri Justice P.V.Sanjay Kumar) FOR CIRCULATION TO: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM FOR KIND PERUSAL AND CONSIDERATION. [1] (2005) 6 SCC 321