Y \ I ,3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7871 OF 2074 AMARAVA FEBRUARY! Between: Jonnada Ram Kumar, S/o.Krupacharyulu, Aged about 36 years, Occ Assistant Plantation Manager, Presently worked in RV Nagar Division, R/o. Coffee Project, Coffee Quarters, Visakhapatnam Seetharamaraju District). District, (presently Alluru ...PETITIONER AND 1. A.P. Forest Development Corporation Limited Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Mangalagiri. Guntur District. 2. The Chairman (Appellate Authority), Board of Directors A.P. Forest Development Corporation Limited, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Regional Manager, APFDC Ltd. Visakhapatnam Region Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Divisional Manager, APFDC Ltd. RV Nagar Division, Visakhapatnam District, presently Alluru Seetharamaraju District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Orders may or Directions more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of articles of charges against the petitioner dated 25.06.2018, No.PD/DC/JRK/2018/695, by the V' respondent who has the modified punishment office vide reference no jurisdiction, order No.34/2021, issued by the 2 j No.PD/DVC/JRK/2018/166 nd respondent, dated 19.05.2021 vide reference and the rejection of the appeal representation by the 1« respondent dated 22.11.2021 vide reference No.PD/DC/JG/Appeal ^ 1.^ 2021/902, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, discriminatory, without Jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of the India and consequently set aside the same with all consequential service benefits to the petitioner in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2n9d Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the modified the 2 praying that in the circumstances punishment order issued by respondent vide office order No.34/2021, dated 19.05.2021 vide reference No.PD/DVC/JRK/2018/166 nd and the rejection of the appeal 22.11.2021 vide reference No.PD/DC/JG/Appeal 2021/902. in the interest of Justice pending disposal Of the above Writ petition and in the interest of petition. representation by the 1^^ respondent dated Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4:SRI AMBATI (SC FOR APFDC) SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010150892024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7871/2024 Between: 1.JONNADA RAM KUMAR, S/O.KRUPACHARYULU ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT PLANTATION MANAGER AGED PRESENTLY WORKED IN RV NAGAR DIVISION, R/0. COFFEE PROJECT, COFFEE QUARTERS, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT). (PRESENTLY ALLURU ...PETITIONER AND 1.AP FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORARTION LIMITED, MANAGING REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE CHAIRMAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BOARD OF A.P. FOREST DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DIRECTORS, CORPORATION DISTRICT. APFDC LTD., VISAKHAPATNAM, 3.THE REGIONAL MANAGER, VISAKHAPATNAM REGION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4.THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APFDC LTD., RV NAGAR DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, PRESENTLY ALLURU SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, Order Orders or Directions more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of articles of charges against the petitioner or dated 25.06.2018, No.PD/DC/JRK/2018/695, by the 1 st respondent who has jurisdiction, the modified punishment office order No.34/2021, issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 19.05.2021 vide reference No. PD/DVC/JRK/2018/166 vide reference no and the rejection of the appeal representation by the 1st respondent dated 22.11.2021 vide reference No.PD/DC/JG/Appeal 2021/902, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, discriminatory. Without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of the India and consequently set aside the same with all consequential service benefits to the petitioner in the interest of justice and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GTUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.AMBATI SATYANARAYANA (SC FOR APFDC) S The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The petitioner, Assistant Plantation Manager, working in Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Limited (for short “APFDC Ltd.”), filed the above writ petition, challenging proceedings No.PD/DC/JRK/2018/695, dated 25.06.2018, issued by the 1 respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. St Heard Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ambati Satyanarayana, learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents. 2. Averments in brief, as per the affidavit, a charge memo vide Ref. No. PD/DC/JRK/2018/695, dated 25.06.2018 (Ex.P1), was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 11.02.2019 (Ex.P2). Thereafter, the Chief General Manager was appointed as an inquiry officer, who, in turn, submitted a report. Acting upon the report, as seen from proceedings vide Ref. No. PD/DC/JRK/2018/2348, dated 09.10.2020 (Ex.P4), a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner did not submit any explanation. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reduction of basic pay to the minimum in the scale of APM for five years to meet the ends of justice and recover the amount of Rs.5061.50, 48,232/- and 4,329/-. Further, the suspension period from 14.11.2017 to 27.04.2018 is treated as duty. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the 2^^^ respondent-Board of Directors, APFDC Ltd., dated 28.12.2020 (Ex.P5). The 2 -respondent, the disciplinary authority, who imposed punishment, is 3. nd of the members of the Board of Directors. The appellate also one authority has modified the said order as “stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect from the date of receipt of grade the punishment proceedings order No.82 of 2020, dated 09.10.2020” vide Ref. No. PD/DCV/JRK/2018/166, dated 19.05.2021 and communicated to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the the same was same, the petitioner filed an appeal representation before the 2 nd Board of Directors of APFDC Ltd. on respondent-Chairman 19.10.2021. But, the same was rejected by the 1®‘ respondent vide dated No.PD/DC/JG/Appeal2021/902 Ref. proceedings 22.11.2021(Ex.P9). 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 1"‘ respondent. In the counter affidavit, it was pleaded about the issuance of a charge memo, conducting inquiry, imposing punishment, filing of the mercy petition by the petitioner etc. St Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1 of the members of the board, the appellate considered the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thus, the 1 5. respondent, one St authority respondent acted as the appellate authority against its case. Being disciplinary authority, the 1"‘ respondent ought not to have acted appellate authority. He would also point out the discrimination the as an in imposing the punishment, among the co-charged officers. learned Standing Counsel Sri Ambati Satyanarayana appearing for the respondents, would submit that as per Section 2 of the Regulations, the Board consists of the Chairman, Vice Chairman and 15 members Board of Directors. The 1"‘ respondent is also one 6. of the members of the Board. .. 'V. ■V Consideration: It is a settled law that a person cannot be a judge in his case Nemo Judex in Causa Sua. If any person acts as appellate authority against his/her own order, it is violative of the principles of natural justice. Institute of Chartered The Hon’ble Apex Court in Accountants v. LK. Ratna & ors\ observed that whoever decides 7. the matter, will be disqualified from sitting in appeal. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, the respondent also acted as an appellate authority. Though the punishment imposed by the primary authority was modified, however, since the 1®* respondent acted as an appellate authority, the said order is liable to be set aside, on that ground alone. Indeed, the 1 respondent communicated the order of the Board, the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition and the also rejected and the same was again communicated by 8. St same was the 1®^ respondent. Thus, the instances amply demonstrated the participation of respondent, being the disciplinary authority, in the appeal as 9. St the 1 well as the mercy petition. The other ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding discrimination in imposing the penalty, this court is not going into that aspect given the discussion supra. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings vide 10. ' 1986 (4) see 537 Ref.No.PD/DCV/JRK/2018/166, dated 19.05.2021 (Ex.P7) and Ref. No. PD/DC/JG/Appeal2021/902, dated respondent. The matter is respondent. The learned 2"^^ respondent shall proceedings 22.11.2021(Ex.P9) issued by the 1 remitted to the 2 decide the appeal independently, by looking into the various grounds raised by the petitioner. The appellate board shall also consider the punishment imposed against the other delinquent/charged officer in connection with the same charges and pass appropriate orders, strictly as per the Rules within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt St nd of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRiNiVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /r SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Forest Development Corporation Limited, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Chairman (Appellate Authority), Board of Directors, A.P. Forest Development Corporation Limited, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Regional Manager, APFDC Ltd., Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. The Divisional Manager, APFDC Ltd., RV Nagar Division, Visakhapatnam District, presently Alluru Seetharamaraju District. One CC to Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Ambati Satyanarayana (SC for APFDC) [OPUC] Three CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ssb HIGH COURT DATED: 17/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.7871 of 2024 JOFANDH^ S 21 MA» 2025- . Current Section o/»-r ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS