A.P. Khadi
and Village Industries Board, Hyderabad & Ors Vs. Shri R. Radhakrishnamurthy
[1997] INSC 151 (11 February 1997)
B.P.
JEEVAN REDDY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D E
R
Leave
grated.
Heard
the counsel for the parties.
This
appeal is directed against the judgement of a Division Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court disposing of the writ appeal with certain directions. The
writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
The
respondent-writ petitioner was working as a Development Officer under the
Appellant-Board. On 25.5.87, as many as 49 charges were framed and served upon
him and a disciplinary enquiry held. The Enquiry Officer found 29 out of 49
charges proved. A show-cause notice dated 4.5.88 was issued calling upon the
respondent to show-cause why he should not be dismissed from service. After
considering his explanation, he was dismissed from service by proceedings dated
25.5.88. The respondent challenged the said order by way of writ petition. One
of the contention urged before the learned Single Judge was that the order of
suspension as well as order of dismissal was not passed by the Chairman but by
some other incompetent authority. This contention was rejected by the learned
Single Judge in the following words:
"In
the counter it is stated that the charge memo was issued with the approval of
the Chairman and the enquiry officer was also appointed with the approval of
the Chairman.
A
perusal of the records shows that the entire proceeding were taken with the
approval of the Chairman commencing from the order of suspension to the date of
the impugned order. The Note File of the Board contains the signatures of the
Chairman on 24.5.87 and 20.11.87 to the effect that the impugned proceedings
were issued by the Chairman. As the Chief Executive Officer is the authority to
communicate the proceedings and hence, all the proceedings were only signed by
him, but the Note File reveals that the Chairman approved the proceedings. The
contention of the petitioner therefore has no substance." The learned
Single Judge also rejected the other contentions urged by the respondent and
dismissed the writ petition. The respondent preferred a writ appeal wherein he
reiterated the contention that the orders of suspension and dismissal were not
taken and approved by the Competent Authority viz., Chairman. With a view to
ascertain the true situation, the Division Bench called upon the counsel for
the Board to produce the original file. The Chief Executive Officer Shri B.Kripandam,
I.A.S., however, filed an affidavit that the original file was handed over to
the standing counsel who had placed it before the learned Single Judge for his
perusal but that the file has not been taken back from the Court. He,
therefore, expressed his inability to produce the file. He reiterated that all
the steps taken against the respondent were taken with the full sanction and
authority of the Chairman. The Division Bench, however, was of the opinion that
since it is not in a position to verify the correctness of the contention urged
by the respondent (appellant before them) in view of the non-availability of
the fire, the respondent should be given the total benefits to which he was
entitled had he retired on the completion of age of superannuation. This is
what the Division Bench observed:
"Although
it is the usual administrative practice for the Chief Executive Officer to
issue formal orders after obtaining on the note file the orders of the
competent authority, in the present case was are unable to verify this fact due
to absence of the file, which as already stated supra, was misplaced. In view
of this lingering doubt we asked the learned before us as to how much amount
the appellant would have been entitled to had he retired on completion of the
age of superannuation, particularly when the order of dismissal was passed five
days before he attained the age of retirement. Sri Murthy, learned counsel for
the statement showing that the total benefits approximately the appellant would
have got comes to Rs. 62,609.06.
Sri
Murthy was also fairly stated that the matter may be closed by awarding some
compensation to the appellant.
In the
circumstances, we are of the view that the following order would be just and
proper. Within three months from today respondents No.1 to 3 shall pay a sum of
Rs.
60,000/-
to the appellant. We must also mention that the post is a non-pensionable one
and in the normal course if the appellant had retired from service, he would
have got approximately the aforesaid amount." In this appeal, it is
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-Board that the Division
Bench ought to have accepted the statement of the learned Single Judge
contained in his judgement and that there was no reason for doubting the
correctness of the said statement. The Board had handed over the file to the
Court and since it was not returned, they were not in a position to produce the
same before the Division Bench. The Board cannot be punished for the same, it
is submitted.
We are
to the opinion that the learned counsel for the appellant is justified in his
submission. The learned Single Judge has specifically and clearly recorded in
his Judgment that he has perused the records and that all the proceedings
"commencing from the order of suspension to the date of the impugned order"
were taken with the approval of the Chairman and that the 'note file' does
contain the signature of the Chairman showing that the impugned order of
dismissal was issued by the Chairman. We see no reason why the said statement
should be doubted. The statement found in the Judgment should be accepted as
correct. The contention of the respondent to the contrary could not have been
countenanced in the face of the said statement in the Judgment. We are,
therefore, of the said statement in the Judgment. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that the respondent must be deemed to have been dismissed by the
Competent Authority viz., Chairman.
Mr. Narasimha,
learned counsel for the respondent writ petitioner, submitted that there are
several other submissions which were raised in the writ appeal but which have
not been considered by the Division Bench since they allowed the appeal on the
aforesaid one submission. In view of this submission, we think it appropriate
that the matter should go back to the High Court/Division Bench for a fresh
disposal of the writ appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the
observations made herein.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The Judgment under appeal is set aside and the
matter remitted to the High Court for a fresh disposal of the writ appeal. No
order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2