*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR +Writ Appeal No.2314 of 2005 % 21.06.2011 Between: #M. Prabhakara Rao … Petitioner Vs. $The A.P. State Seed Certification rep.by its Director, 5-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad and another … Respondents ! Counsel for the appellant: Sri G. Vidya Sagar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri A. Tulasiraj Kokul, SC for Seed Certification Agency. <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. AIR 1961 SC 1070 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Appeal No.2314 of 2005 Date: 21.06.2011 Between: M. Prabhakara Rao .. Petitioner AND The A.P. State Seed Certification Agency rep.by its Director, 5-10-193, 1st floor, HACA Bhava, Hyderabad, and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Appeal No.2314 of 2005 JUDGMENT (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed): Challenging the order dated 22.06.2005 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.12983 of 2001, the writ petitioner filed the present writ appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The writ petitioner was working as an Attender in the respondent-A.P. State Seed Certification Agency. The second respondent issued a charge memo dated 24.06.1996 against the writ petitioner alleging that he has made fictitious application for registration in the name of alleged seed grower V. Govinda Reddy and making speculative investments in the business, which is in violation of the conduct Rules of respondent-Agency and framed two charges calling upon him to submit the explanation within ten days. Thereupon, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 01.07.1996 requesting the second respondent to furnish a copy of the written statement of V.Govinda Reddy, but the second respondent failed to do so. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the second respondent on 05.08.1996 requesting him to conduct an oral enquiry in charge No.1. It is alleged that the second respondent without conducting any enquiry, issued a show cause notice dated 30.09.1996 calling for the petitioner’s explanation. After submitting the explanation of the petitioner, the second respondent by proceedings dated 22.08.1998 terminated the petitioner from service. Questioning the said termination order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, which was dismissed by proceedings dated 30.12.2000 stating that the grounds stated for considering his request for reinstatement were examined and found not satisfactory and therefore, his request for reinstatement is negatived. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner filed W.P. No.12983 of 2001. After considering the matter, the learned single Judge, by order dated 22.06.2005, dismissed the said writ petition. Assailing the same, the writ appeal is filed. 3. Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri A. Tulasiraj Gokul, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Seed Certification Agency. 4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the orders of the second respondent in terminating the writ petitioner from service, as confirmed by the first respondent, are illegal and ultra vires the Rules framed under Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency (APSSCA) Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations (‘the Regulations’ for short). He further contended that when some more employees are involved in the alleged incident, no joint enquiry has been conducted and therefore, it caused prejudice to the writ petitioner and that the procedure for imposing major penalty as required under Rule-8 of the Regulations has not been followed by the respondents and no enquiry is conducted and no witness is examined and therefore, the impugned proceedings are vitiated by not conducting enquiry and therefore, the order under challenge in this appeal is contrary to law. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that without conducting any enquiry, imposition of major punishment of removal from service is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and in terms of Rule-8 of the Regulations, an enquiry has to be conducted after receipt of the written statement of the employee and in the inquiry, reasonable opportunity should be afforded to the employee. However, in the instant case, no enquiry was conducted by the respondent-Agency and therefore, the entire proceedings are contrary to the said Regulations. He further contended that even if no written statement is received from the employee within the stipulated time, an enquiry has to be held either by the disciplinary authority or by an officer or a committee appointed for the said purpose. He further contended that in the absence of exercising the option not examining the witness or not marking the documents in the facts and circumstances of the case ipso facto do not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings is a misconceived finding. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Agency contended that the option was given to the delinquent employee for holding an oral enquiry or without oral enquiry and that has not been exercised by the writ petitioner and the termination order is complete in accordance with the said Regulations and that after proper application of mind by the appellate authority as well as the learned single Judge, the orders are passed. He further contended that since other two employees do not come under the purview of the respondent-Agency and they being on deputation, the appropriate disciplinary authority has taken action and therefore, the question of joint enquiry does not arise and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ appeal. 7. The learned single Judge while dismissing the writ petition observed that there is a clear misconduct within the meaning of sub-regulation (xxv) of Regulation 4 of Regulations, 1977 and basing on the material available on record, the disciplinary authority dismissed the writ petitioner from service and therefore, the dismissal order cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. 8. As seen from the record, it is clear that admittedly no enquiry was conducted in this matter. In terms of Rule-8, an enquiry has to be conducted after receipt of the written statement of the employee and in the enquiry, a reasonable opportunity should be afforded to the employee. The enquiry may either be held by the disciplinary authority itself or by an officer or a committee appointed for the purpose by the disciplinary authority. The observations of learned single Judge in the impugned order that that the information is given by the delinquent whether to hold oral enquiry or to be heard in person without an oral enquiry and since the appellant herein has not exercised such an option, there is no obligation to conduct the enquiry, are clearly in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the said Regulations. 9. It is pertinent to state here that in Jagdish Prasad Saxena v. State of Madhya Bharat[1] the Supreme Court observed that failure to hold formal enquiry constituted a serious infirmity in the order of dismissal passed against the employee and in taking disciplinary action against a public servant, an appropriate departmental enquiry must be held against him after supplying with charge sheet and he must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations contained in the charge sheet. The departmental enquiry is not an empty formality and it is a serious proceeding intended to give the employee concerned a chance to meet the charge and prove his innocence. 10. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant-writ petitioner in his explanation to the charge memo specifically stated that “I request that I desire to have an enquiry in the case” and thus it was the clear indication on the part of the delinquent employee that he desires to have an oral enquiry. Merely because he has not exercised his option in terms of Form-I, it cannot be deemed as eschewing his right to departmental enquiry. More particularly in the case of imposition of major punishment of removal of an employee from service, proper departmental enquiry has to be conducted by the authority concerned. Admittedly, in this matter no enquiry was conducted. On that above ground alone and in view of the above decision in Jagdish Prasad Saxena’s case (supra), we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the second respondent for conducting proper enquiry. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the order dated 22.06.2005 passed in WP No.12983 of 2001, the order dated 30.12.2000 of the first respondent and also the order dated 22.08.1998 of the second respondent are set aside. The matter is remitted to the second respondent for conducting proper enquiry. After affording an opportunity to the writ petitioner, the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Regulations, as expeditiously as possible. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. __________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ________________ K.G. Shankar, J Date: 21.06.2011 Isn Note: L.R. Copy marked. [1] AIR 1961 SC 1070