\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7880 OF 2024 Between; Jarapala Gandhi, S/o. Balaram, Aged about 33 years, Occ; Assistant Plantation Manager, Presently worked in Bapatia Division, R/o. Plot No.88, Road No.4, Vivekananda Colony, Bapatia, Guntur District, (presently Bapatia District). ...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., Nellore Region, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Divisional Manager, APFDC Ltd., Bapatia Division, Guntur District, (presently Bapatia 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Orders or Directions more particularly in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of articles of vide reference one charges against the petitioner dated 25.06.2018, No.PD/DC/JG/2018/696, by the 1®' respondent who has no jurisdiction, the modified punishment office order No. 33/2021 nd issued by the 2 respondent, dated 19.05.2021 vide reference No.PD/DVC/JG/2018/16 7, and the rejection of the appeal representation by the respondent dated 22.11.2021 vide reference No.PD/DC/JG/Appeal 2021/903 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, discriminatory, without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 16 & 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 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 to stay the operation of the modified punishment order issued by the 2 respondent vide office order No.33/2021 reference No. PD/DVC/JG/2018/167 dated 19.05.2021 vide and the rejection of the appeal representation by the 1®‘ respondent dated 22.11.2021 vide reference No.PD/DC/JG/Appeal 2021/903in the interest of justice pending disposal the above Writ petition and in the interest of petitioner. of Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SRI AMBATI SATYANARAYANA (SC FOR APFDC) The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010150852024 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: 7880/2024 Between; 1.JARAPALA GANDHI, S/0. BALARAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT PLANTATION MANAGER, PRESENTLY WORKED IN BAPATIA DIVISION, R/0. PLOT N0.88, ROAD N0.4, VIVEKANANDA COLONY, BAPATIA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, (PRESENTLY BAPATIA DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND 1.AP FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, MANAGING REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE CHAIRMAN APPELLATE AUTHORITY. BOARD OF DEVELOPMENT MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR A.P. FOREST DIRECTORS, CORPORATION LIMITED, DISTRICT. 3.THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APFDC LTD., NELLORE REGION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4.THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APFDC LTD., BAPATIA DIVISION, GUNTUR DISTRICT, (PRESENTLY BAPATIA DISTRICT). 2 ...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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Orders or Directions more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the issuance of articles of charges against the petitioner No.PD/DC/JG/2018/696, by the respondent who has no jurisdiction, the modified punishment office order No. 33/2021, issued by the 2nd respondent, dated No.PD/DVC/JG/2018/167, and the rejection of the appeal representation by the 1st respondent dated 22.11.2021 vide reference No.PD/DC/JG/Appeal 2021/903 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 other order or orders as deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case dated 25.06.2018, vide reference 19.05.2021 vide reference 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 may be pleased to stay the operation of the modified punishment order issued by the 2 respondent vide office order No.33/2021, dated 19.05.2021 vide reference No. PD/DVC/JG/2018/167, and the rejection of the appeal representation by the 1 reference No.PD/DC/JG/Appeal 2021/903in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above Writ petition and in the interest of respondent dated 22.11.2021 vide petitioner and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GTUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): t w 3 1.AMBATI SATYANARAYANA (SC FOR APFDC) 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/JG/2018/696, dated 25.06.2018, issued by the 1 respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. St Fleard 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/JG/2018, dated 25.06.2018 (Ex.P1), was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 03.08.2018 (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/JG/2018, dated 09.10.2020 (Ex.P4) was issued to the petitioner. Wherein, 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 six years to meet the ends of justice and recover an amount of Rs.37, 249/-. Further, the suspension period from 18.02.218 to 31.10.2018 is treated as duty. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the 1®' respondent-Board of Directors, APFDC Ltd., dated 28.12.2020 (Ex.P5). The 1®* respondent, the disciplinary authority. 3. a show cause notice who imposed punishment, is also one of the members of the Board of Directors. The appellate authority has modified the said order “stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect from the date of receipt of the punishment order No.83 of 2019, dated 09.10.2020” vide proceedings Ref. No. PD/DCV/JG/2018, as dated 19.05.2021 and the same was communicated to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal representation before the 2"^^ respondent-Chairman, Board of Directors of APFDC Ltd. on 19.10.2021. But, the same was rejected by the 1®' respondent vide proceedings Ref. No. PD/DC/JG/Appeal2021/903, dated 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1^' respondent one of the members of the board, the appellate authority, considered the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thus, the 1®‘ respondent acted as the appellate authority against its case. Being the disciplinary authority, the 1®‘ respondent ought not to have acted as an appellate authority. He would also point out the discrimination in, imposing the punishment, among the co-charged officers. Sri Ambati Satyanarayana, learned Standing Counsel 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 of the members of the Board. 5. 6. 5 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. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants v. L.K. Ratna & ors\ observed that whoever decides 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. The 1®' respondent communicated the order of the Board, the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a mercy petition and the same was also rejected and the same was again communicated by the 1 respondent. Thus, the instances amply demonstrated the participation of the 1 respondent, being the disciplinary authority, in the appeal as 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. St St st Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the proceedings vide Ref. No. PD/DCV/JG/2018, dated 19.05.2021 (Ex.P7) and proceedings Ref. No. PD/DC/JG/Appeal2021/903, dated 22.11.2021 (Ex.P9) issued by 8. 1986 (4) see 537 6 the 1®^ respondent. The matter is remitted to the 2^^ respondent. The 2"^^ respondent shall 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 of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this case, shall stand closed. Sd/- N, NAGAMMA ASSISTANT, REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 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., Nellore Region, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. The Divisional Manager, APFDC Ltd., Bapatia Division, Guntur District, (presently Bapatia District). One CC to Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Ambati Satyanarayana (SC for APFDC) [OPUC] Three CD Copies. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:17/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.7880 of 2024 ^ 10 MAR 2025 ^ 5^- . Current Section \T1 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS