APHC010028902009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28662/2009 Between: 1. SMT.V.VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. M. SRINIVASA RAO, WORKING AS ADDL. PROGRAMME OFFICER, RACHERLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF A P 3 OTHERS, REP BY ITS SECRETARY P.R. AND R.D. DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, 2. SOCIETY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, REP BY IS MEMBER SECRETARY,M OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER RURAL DEVELOPMENT, HERMITAGE OFFICE COMPLEX, ADARSH NAGAR, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD. 3. THE COLLECTOR CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.S 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings No 144/SRDS/HRSM/Prakasam/2009 dt 08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 28662/2009 SMT.V.VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. M. SRINIVASA RAO, WORKING AS ADDL. PROGRAMME OFFICER, RACHERLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF A P 3 OTHERS, REP BY ITS SECRETARY P.R. AND R.D. DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD. SOCIETY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, REP BY IS MEMBER SECRETARY,M OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER RURAL DEVELOPMENT, HERMITAGE OFFICE COMPLEX, ADARSH NAGAR, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD. THE COLLECTOR CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.S THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.S ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of laring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing proceedings No 144/SRDS/HRSM/Prakasam/2009 dt 08-12-2009, as illegal IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SMT.V.VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. M. SRINIVASA RAO, WORKING AS ADDL. PROGRAMME OFFICER, RACHERLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF A P 3 OTHERS, REP BY ITS SECRETARY P.R. AND HYDERABAD. SOCIETY FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, REP BY IS MEMBER SECRETARY,M OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER RURAL DEVELOPMENT, HERMITAGE OFFICE COMPLEX, ADARSH NAGAR, THE COLLECTOR CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of laring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing 2009, as illegal RCJ W.P.No.28662 of 2009 2 arbitrary and violative of principles of natural jusitce and offending Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequentially to set aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP 37262 OF 2009 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings No 144/SRDS/HRSM/ Prakasam/2009 dt 08-12-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M S R CHANDRA MURTHY 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV 3. A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO ORDER Challenge laid in this writ petition is to the proceedings No.144/SRDS/ HRSM/ Prakasam/2009, dated 08.12.2009 issued by respondent no.2. 2. Through the proceedings impugned the petitioner’s services as Additional Programme Officer were terminated. 3. The contents of the petition, in brief, are that the Collector & Chairman, District Water Management Agency, issued a show cause notice framing five (05) charges alleging that the petitioner while she was working in C.S.Puram Mandal had misappropriated the amount to the tune of Rs.2,40,116/- by opening Double accounts and creating duplicate job cards. In response thereto, the petitioner RCJ W.P.No.28662 of 2009 3 submitted her explanation that as the Post Master, Mullapadu did not open post office accounts to the job card holders, as per directions of the MPDO, who is the competent authority, post office accounts were opened by wage seekers themselves in Sub Post Master’s Office, C.S.Puram and thereafter as Mullapadu Branch Post Master had shown his willingness, the wage seekers again opened accounts in the said post office. Further, the Panchayat Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchyat is the competent authority to issue job cards, but not the petitioner. That the petitioner was made scape goat for the lapses committed by some others. Be that as it may, the respondent no.3, who issued show cause notice, is incompetent to be the disciplinary authority and respondent no.2 is alone is the competent. Moreover, the impugned proceedings refers to the report submitted by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 and statements said to have been recorded from the wage seekers, which were never supplied to the petitioner. Therefore, there is flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, which goes to the root of the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The respondent no.2 filed counter affidavit denying the material averments of the petition inter alia contending that the petitioner, taking advantage of ignorance of wage seekers and by misusing her official position, misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,40,116/- by opening double accounts and by creating duplicate job cards and based on the report given by Additional Project Director, charges were framed and upon considering the report of the enquiry officer, as the charges RCJ W.P.No.28662 of 2009 4 leveled against the petitioner were held proved, the contract agreement of the petitioner was terminated. The writ petition is meritless and the same deserves dismissal. 5. Heard Sri A.V.N.Yaswanth, learned counsel, representing Smt. KavithaGottipati, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for respondents. 6. Sri AVN Yaswanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that non furnishing report of respondent no.3 submitted to respondent no.2, which was relied upon to pass the impugned order and so also the statements said to have been recorded from wage seekers behind the back of the petitioner is violative of the sacred and cardinal principle of natural justice and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and the same has to be set aside. He would further contend that respondent no.3 who issued the show cause notice is incompetent to be the disciplinary authority and therefore, the show cause notice having been issued by incompetent disciplinary authority the same does not carry any sanctity to initiate action and terminate the petitioner from service. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. RCJ W.P.No.28662 of 2009 5 In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Surjit Ghosh vs Chairman & Managing Director, United Commercial Bank &Ors.1. 7. Per contra, Sri MSR Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for respondents, sought to justify the impugned orders contending that termination orders was passed by the competent disciplinary authority and there was no violation of principle of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decisions in U.P.State Textile Corpn.Ltd. vs.Suresh Kumar 2 , Naripogula Anandaiah and 11 others vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, PR&RD Department, Hyderabad and 8 others 3 and Boggadi Rama Chandra Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, PR&RD Department, Hyderabad and others4. 1.1995 SCC (2) 474 2 . 2011-LAWS(SC)-2-92 3.Orders dated 16.08.2016 by Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh 4.2016 (5) ALT 45 RCJ W.P.No.28662 of 2009 6 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. The petitioner alleges violation of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order of terminating her from service. The impugned order refers to submission of a report by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 wherein the charges framed against the petitioner were held to be proved and thereupon the respondent no.2 issued the impugned order terminating the petitioner from service. 10. Admittedly, the report submitted by respondent no.3 to respondent no.2 was not at all furnished to the petitioner offering objections of the petitioner on the said report. Further, the statements of wage seekers recorded in the absence of the petitioner were also not furnished. 11. The principle that a disciplinary authority must provide all relevant materials to a petitioner before issuing an order is a core requirement of natural justice and is often enshrined in specific rules of conduct for disciplinary proceedings. This ensures a fair hearing by allowing the petitioner to understand the evidence and arguments against them, prepare their defense, and have a meaningful opportunity to respond. RCJ W.P.No.28662 of 2009 7 12. In Deepak Ananda Patil v. State of Maharashtra5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus: “It is a well-established principle of administrative law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilized has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. “If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings.” 13. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that non-disclosure of material is fatal to the validity of the proceedings, the action of respondent no.2 in passing the impugned order without furnishing the material relied on for passing the said orders is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. 14. Inasmuch as the decisions relied on by Sri MSR Chandra Murthy, learned counsel for respondents, are not in relation to non-disclosure of 5.(2023) 11 SCC 130)) RCJ W.P.No.28662 of 2009 8 material to the party, the observations made and the conclusions reached therein cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. 15. In view of the conclusion already reached, it is needless to go into the other aspects. 16. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 08.12.2009 issued by respondent no.2 vide Proceedings No.144/SRDS/HRSM/Prakasam/2009. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J RR