IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 12222 of 2009 Between: K.Venkateswarlu, S/o. Sri Ramanaiah, R/o. Venkat Reddy Nager, Vedyapalem, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Managing Director, Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector/Executive Director, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd, Nellore, Nellore District. 3 The Enquiry Officer/ Executive Engineer, A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd., Urdu Galli, Himayathnagar, 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 will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the enquiry conducted by the third Respondent vide Report Dt. 11-8-2008 and the consequential Order passed by the first Respondent proceedings No.7580/APSHCL/vig(3)/NLR/ 2007, Dt 1.10.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice, malafide and contrary to rule- 20 of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1991 and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.RAGHU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MOHAN RAMI REDDY The Court made the following : O R D E R : Sri K. Mohan Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent and with his consent, the Writ Petition has been taken up for hearing and disposal. This Writ Petition has been directed against the order passed on 01.10.2008 by the Managing Director of the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, imposing on the writ petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service, apart from ordering for recovery of Rs.32.81 lakhs with interest at 12% per annum. The writ petitioner was working as an Assistant Engineer (Housing) with the 1st respondent - Corporation in Nellore District. On the ground that he has ordered for transfer and payment of Rs.45.32 lakhs to as many as 181 beneficiaries at one go, he has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings. An Enquiry Officer has been appointed and she submitted her report holding the writ petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and agreeing with those findings, the Managing Director of the 1st respondent – Corporation passed the impugned orders, imposing the major punishment of dismissal from service. Sri C. Raghu, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent Corporation strenuously submits that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of the procedural requirements of the Discipline, Control and Appeal Rules of the Corporation as well as in violation of the basic principles of natural justice. The learned counsel would submit that no opportunity has been provided to the writ petitioner by calling for his explanation prior to being charge-sheeted. Though an Enquiry Officer has been appointed, no Presenting Officer has been appointed to present the case on behalf of the Corporation and that task has been entrusted to the Enquiry Officer herself. In other words, the Enquiry Officer has discharged the two functions of the Presenting Officer as well as the Enquiry Officer and consequently, she had suffered the disadvantage of coming to an advance conclusion with regard to the material against the writ petitioner. If a Presenting Officer is appointed, he/she would have presented the material collected against the writ petitioner and the Enquiry Officer would have kept her mind open till such time the entire enquiry is completed, duly providing an opportunity to the writ petitioner to defend his conduct. Since the two roles have been combined, the element of advance conclusions or prejudice or pre-conceived notions are bound to weigh with the Enquiry Officer while finalizing her report. That is not a fair procedure, which has been contemplated and provided for in the Discipline, Control and Appeal Rules followed by the first respondent - Corporation. The learned counsel would further urge that the Corporation has already stopped further payments to be made beyond Rs.18,250/-, which was released in favour of the two beneficiaries. In effect, Rs. 45.14 lakhs has not, in fact, been paid to any of the beneficiaries. In such a case, the question of imposing the punishment or ordering recovery from the writ petitioner any amount, would not arise. These very objections have been raised and pointed out by the writ petitioner while submitting his explanation, which have not been considered. The entire exercise has been tersely concluded by the Managing Director of the 1st respondent – Corporation, holding that the explanation offered by the writ petitioner is not satisfactory, without disclosing as to the reasons why the said explanation was not satisfactory. What has been recorded, according to the learned counsel, by the Managing Director, is a conclusion that the explanation offered by the writ petitioner was not satisfactory, but it is not a reason by itself. It is too elementary that when quasi-judicial proceedings, which are likely to visit the opposite party with evil and grave consequences, are concluded, reasons must be set forth. Long years ago, in M.P. Industries Limited v. Union of India[1], the said issue has been concluded by the Supreme Court in the following words. “ ……. Our Constitution posits a welfare State, it is not defined, but its incidents are found in Chapters III and IV thereof, i.e., the Parts embodying fundamental rights and directive principles of State Policy respectively. “Welfare State” as conceived by our Constitution is a State where there is prosperity, equality, freedoms and social justice. In the context of a welfare State, administrative Tribunals have come to stay. Indeed, they are the necessary concomitants of a Welfare State. But arbitrariness in their functioning destroys the concept of a welfare State itself. Self-discipline and supervision exclude or at any rate minimize arbitrariness. The least the Tribunal can do is to disclose its mind. The compulsion of disclosure guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons introduces clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the party against whom the order is made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory Court to keep the Tribunals within bounds. A reasoned order is a desirable condition of judicial disposal”. Even though, the disciplinary proceedings may have been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, but still, it is for the Appellate Authority to consider the entire matter in a proper perspective. The Appellate Authority possibly will have the benefit of ordering for fresh enquiry in the entire matter. It may also call for specific findings on any of the misconducts alleged against the writ petitioner, if such findings are lacking in the Enquiry Report. The Appellate Authority will be able to appreciate the practices and procedures normally adopted and followed by organizations. Therefore, as a rule of prudence, Courts decline to entertain the Writ Petitions when there are effective alternative remedies available In the instant case, making an appeal to the Board of Directors is equally an efficacious remedy available to the writ petitioner. There are no good reasons why the writ petitioner should not be compelled to avail the same. In case, the writ petitioner prefers an appeal, on or before 15.07.2009, against the impugned order passed by the Managing Director of the 1st respondent - Corporation, the Appellate Authority namely, the Board of Directors of the 1st respondent - Corporation will entertain the same, without rejecting it on the only ground that it has been preferred beyond the time limit available for so preferring. The appeal will be dealt with on merits and appropriate speaking order will be passed, as expeditiously as possible, within a maximum period of six months. Pending further consideration of the appeal, the 1st respondent – Corporation, however, shall not take any coercive steps to recover the money ordered through the impugned proceedings. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________________ (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 23rd June 2009 lmv/ksld THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.12222 of 2009 23-06-2009 lmv [1] AIR 1966 SC 671