1 APHC010556442022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 33951/2022 Between: U Suresh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISHNA RAO M Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents Particularly the 4th respondent issued the Impugned memo in Rc No Estt/ICC/ATMA/2022 dated 25.08.2022 for termination of the petitioner from the services of Call Center Executive CCE ICC working at Gannavaram Mandal, Marlapalem Road, Krishna District, by the respondents, without Jurisdiction, without notice and without opportunity of being heard as the same illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and also violation of the Article 14 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently set aside the Impugned memo in Rc No Estt/ICCJATMA/2022 dated 25.08.2022 BY the respondents to continue the petitioner services as a Call Center Executive CCE ICC with All Consequential benefits and pass….” 2 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on contract basis as a SMS (Subject Matter Specialist Government of India) since 3rd February 2012. Subsequently Upgradation as BTM (Block Teaching Manager) 2014, again further promotion as a Division Level Extension upto 2020, and he Deputed Gannavaram as Call Center Executive (CCE) ICC. He has completed 10 years of service without any remark whatsoever. It is stated that the respondents‘ Authority has issued Memo vide impugned Memo dated 25-08-2022 alleging that ‗Misconduct‘- while discharging his duties and irregular working with break time during duty ours. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the said Memo. But without considering the same and without neither conducting any enquiry nor giving any opportunity, the respondents have issued the impugned Memo vide Rc No.Estt/ICC/ ATMA/2022, dated 25.08.2022 and terminated the services of the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, stated that, the petitioner was just taken as Subject Matter Specialist on contract basis and later the post of Subject Matter Specialist was upgraded to Block Technology Manager. He was never promoted. On 18.06.2022 the Nodal Officer addressed a letter to Joint director of Agriculture RBK, O/o the Commissioner of Agriculture complaining about the behavior of the petitioner and after receiving the above said letter from the Nodal officer ICC, Gannavaram, the Joint Director of Agriculture RBKs issued a memo to the petitioner on 3 22.06.2022. Later, as his behavior as well as the explanation to the memo served is not satisfactory and not convincing, the Special Commissioner of Agriculture directed the 4th Respondent to terminate the contractual services of the petitioner vide Note Orders dated 03.08.2022. It is stated that, the posting order clearly shows that the service of the petitioner will be terminated subject to continuation of the scheme and if the petitioner is found non performer or guilty of fraud, dishonest, disobedience, disorderly behaviour, negligence, indiscipline, absence from duty without permission or any other conduct considered by is deterrent to their interest or of violation of one or more terms of this letter, the petitioner‘s services may be terminated without notice and on account of reason of any of the acts or omission, the Project Director shall be entitled to recover the damages from the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that, the 6th respondent has received a complaint dated 18-06-2022 from the Nodal Officer, when the said complaint was pending another complaint was received from others on 26.7.2022, after submission of preliminary enquiry report the same was forwarded to the 3rd respondent, who in turn directed the 4th respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner. Hence there is no illegality in the impugned order. 4. Heard Sri M. Krishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, submits that, the petitioner has submitted his 4 explanation to the impugned Memo. The allegations and explanations submitted by the petitioner, as follows: (1) it is alleged that my behaviour is not good an always creating obstructions in work area. Explanation:1 submit that till today any of my colleague or other staff have made any complaint against me, stating that there is any problem and inconvenience to them. (2)With regard to leave of 4 days availed by me, it is alleged that leave availed without prior permission. Explanation: I submit that on the first day, withregard to leave, I had taken permission from the Nodal Officer. But for the subsequent 3 days due to the illness of family members, ie My Father I have not taken prior permission. But with regard to 3 days leave available, I informed the Nodal Officer about the happening and applied for 4 days normal leave and submitted leave letter requesting the Madam to sanction the 4 days normal leave. I had been issued memo for the leave applied without obtaining prior permission. I submitted my explanation for the same. (3) On 16.06.2022 at the time of verification, showed interest to tell me the calls received for me and further in presence of all scolded as Incharge officer and said that it is wrong, and said to take action against the petitioner. Explanation:I submit that in the CCE details uploaded in Google drive, my name is not found. Previously also I said the same to Srinivasa Chary. He immediately called for explanation in this regard from ADMIN Staff. they said it was an oversight and assured that the same is not repeated again. Then the said problem did not rose again. But the present Nodal Officer, without any mistake from the ADMIN staff, with regards to CCE details of some of the employees, taking minor inconvenient decisions. So also in previous month as stated by ADMIN staff, in the "Duty Certificate" 25 days "medical leave" is shown against me. For one months salary, calculated salary for 5 days. When I asked who shall take responsibility for this, it is said it is not appropriate time, and asks us to inform the problems at Chamber. If I go to ask the same, I will be asked to come later. In the conversation when I said that if there is any mistake on my part action may be taken against me. Without speaking to the resolution of the problem, it is painful with regards to the way talked to me in presence of all. Till now no Nodal Officer, had seen us as contract workers and referred as such. But the present Nodal officer, many times, frequently called us as contract employees, and it is not known when you will be in job or made to leave. (4) it is alleged that when Madam joined in the duty newly, when I asked that personal photos are not printed in Rythu Bharosa Magazine, I threw the magazine on Madam's table and that I talked with regard to change of shift at Madam's house is also alleged to be as a mistake. Explanation: I submit that with regard to Rythu Bharosa Magazine,along with me another three persons also went. In the magazine for the past 8 months, CCE photos of only one cabin are printed. This month also only their photographs are taken and sending is told. On that Madam replied that whether it is mandatory to print their photos, it is the discretion of the publisher. For that we said to the Madam that each month photos will be sent from this office only. Previously verify time, we said that Sridhar Sir, instructed Sri D.Venkateswara Rao, the then Nodal officer, that the photos of all persons working CCEs in each and every cabin be published in the magazine and informed the same to the Madam. After four days this incident, due to some urgent work at my home, in emergency situation, to take permission with regard to change ofshift, I was constrained to call Madam during 7-8 hours. Previously also we used to take permissions from previous Nodal officers Sri D.Venkateswararao and Sri Srinivasa Chari, by the employees working in our office as per their necessity and for prior permission, used to call them. I also made in the same manner. If at all any inconvenience is caused to the Madam for having called at that time, I shall message that I will not repeat it again. (5) it is alleged that I am taking break of more than 45 minutes while I am attending to calls and alleged that without taking permission I am going out. Explanation: I submit that every day daily for lunch I go to my house and it takes about 45-60 minutes. So also during our shift hours, we go to tea one or two times. When we have conversation with farmers, due to their vocabulary it becomes necessary to go outside, as it effects other calls. At the time of joining, in this office, we have been provided such relaxation by the Director, ATMA and Sridhar. I am not going out for any other works during my shift hours. In the Integrated call centre, all are not treated equally, but followed divide and rule policy and on the false information/incidents given by some of our colleagues, are taken into consideration and along with me some other CCE employees are put to inconvenience. The main information to be focused by the Information Centre/recorded is not done, and we are putting our efforts in dealing with the issues raised by the farmers, 5 making such baseless allegations is much painful. I hope that this type of Memo is not issued to any CCE. Is illegal arbitrary violation of the procedure 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation, but the respondents, without considering the same and without conducting proper enquiry terminated the services of the petitioner, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned orders. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court reported in V.P. Ahuja versus State of Punjab and others1, wherein it was held that – a probationer like a temporary servant is also entitled to certain protection – His services cannot be terminated arbitrarily or punitively without complying with the principles of natural justice – appellant’s services terminated during probation period invoking terms and conditions of his appointment which permitted termination without notice- Termination order stating that the appellant “failed in the performance of his duties administratively and technically”—" 8. Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents while reiterating the contents made in the counter submits that the 6th respondent has received a complaint dated 18.6.2022 from the Nodal Officer and when the said complaint is pending, another complaint was also received from others on 26.7.2022 against the petitioner. He submits that, 1(2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 239 6 after submission of preliminary enquiry report, the same was forwarded to the 3rd respondent, who in-turn directed the 4th respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order. He further submits that, in pursuance of the Note Order, the 4th Respondent terminated the petitioner on 25.08.2022. So, it is very clear that an opportunity was given to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation also on 24.06.2022. The petitioner suppressed the said fact, filed the Writ Petition with misrepresentation. Further, the petitioner has no right to file any writ petition, suit or any other proceeding before any Court of Law as he is a contractual employee and he joined the duty by consenting to the terms and conditions duly executing an agreement bond by himself. Therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed in limine. 9. Perused the material on record. 10. In a case of S.Zabeda Parveen Vs. A.P. Women’s cooperative Finance Corporation, Hyderabad and another2, wherein the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad held that : 3. The principles of natural justice require that whenever a person is likely to suffer evil consequences, he shall be given an opportunity of being heard. These principles comprise two fundamental aspects of fair procedure – No man shall be a Judge of his own cause (nemo iudex in causa sua) and a man shall not be condemned unheard (See State of Orissa v. Dr. Bina Pani Dei [13] ). No judgment has better illustrated the requirement of adherence to the principles of natural justice than that in the earliest English case, Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [14] . The principle is stated thus. "…even God did not pass (a) sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. "Adam" (says God), "where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat". In that case, even though there were no express words in the statute for a prior notice, the Court held: 22016 (1) ALT 469 (S.B.) 7 ―…although there are not positive words in a statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law (shall) supply the omission of the legislature‖ 11. It is pertinent to mention here that Rule 20 of the Rules laid down a detailed procedure to be followed by the Inquiring authority in the enquiry. Under sub-rule (7)(a) of Rule 20 of the rules the disciplinary authority shall inter alia forward to the Inquiring Authority – i) ―a copy of the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour; ii) a copy of the written statement of defence, if any submitted by the Government Servant; iii) copies of the Statements of Witnesses, referred to in subrule (3); iv) copies of documents referred to in sub-rule (3); v) evidence proving the delivery of copies of the documents referred to in sub-rule (3) to the Government Servant; and vi) a copy of the order appointing the ―Presenting Officer‖. Under sub-rule (8) of Rule 20 of the Rules, after receiving the documents mentioned under sub-rule (7)(a), the Inquiring Authority shall issue a notice in writing to the Presenting Officer and also to the Government Servant to appear before him on such day and at such time and place specified by him which shall not exceed ten days. Under sub-rule (9) thereof, the Presenting Officer and the Government Servant shall appear before the Inquiring Authority on the date fixed under sub-rule (8). The Inquiring Authority shall then give an opportunity to the government servant to inspect the documents if he so wishes for the purpose of preparing his defence. 12. Under sub-rule (10)(a) of Rule 20 of the Rules, on the date fixed for recording the evidence, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charges are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority, and under clause (b) the evidence shall be recorded as far as possible on day-today basis till the evidence on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority is completed. Under clause (c) the witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and they may be cross- examined by or on behalf of the Government Servant. Under sub-clause (e) the Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. 8 13. Under sub-rule (12)(a) of Rule 20 of the Rules when the case for the Disciplinary Authority is closed, the Government Servant shall be required to state his defence orally or in writing as he may prefer and to submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf for which purpose the case may be adjourned to a date not exceeding five days. Under clause (b) thereof, if the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government Servant shall be required to sign the record. In either case, a copy of the statement of defence and the list of defence witnesses may be provided to the Presenting Officer. 14. Under sub-rule (13) of Rule 20 of the Rules, the evidence on behalf of the Government Servant shall then be produced. Under subrule (15) the Inquiring Authority may hear the Presenting Officer, if any appointed, and the Government Servant, or permit them to file written briefs of their respective cases, if they so desire. 15. In the present case, as seen from the Impugned Memo dated 25.08.2022, wherein it was mentioned that, on a representation submitted to this office duly complaining about the petitioner stating that the petitioner and his wife are humiliating other CCEs of ICC and also repeatedly launching complaints against the fellow CCEs in the police station. The CCEs have also complained that, with this type of behavior of Sri Suresh, the entire work culture of the ICC is being disturbed and fellow CCEs are not in a position to discharge duties properly. 9 In view of the above, the Special commissioner of Agriculture, A.P., Guntur has issued orders to terminate the contractual services of Sri U.Suresh, who is presently working as CCE at ICC, Gannavaram.” 16. As seen from the above, it appears that the respondents without conducting proper enquiry and without affording an opportunity, mechanically passed the impugned order. 17. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others 3 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied). The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 18. On a perusal of the material on record, in the present case, it is observed that, only basing on the complaints from others, the respondents 3 AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 10 came to conclusion and issued the impend Memo. Further, as stated by respondents‘ counsel that, after submissions of preliminary enquiry report only, the respondents have issued the impugned Memo terminating the services of the petitioner. 19. A probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. 20. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on the law laid down by the Hon‘ble Supreme court and this Court in the decisions referred to above, this Court is inclined to allow the present writ petition while declaring the impugned Memo as illegal and arbitrary and also inclined to remand back the matter to the respondents concerned for fresh consideration. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed the impugned Memo vide Rc.No.Estt/ICC/ ATMA/2022, dated 25.08.2022 issued by the 4th respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the concerned respondent authorities to pass appropriate fresh reasoned orders, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 11 22. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : -04-2025 Gvl 12 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITON No.33951 of 2022 Date : .04.2025 Gvl