THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.15087 of 2014 Date: 05.06.2014 Between :
H.M. Basha .. Petitioner and The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.15087 of 2014 ORAL ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, apart from perusing the record.
Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Shorn of extraneous particulars, the facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Mechanic on 31.12.1991 in the respondent-Corporation under bread winner scheme. Later, in course of time, on 24.02.2014, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Leading Hand through proceedings dated 22.02.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner was reverted through proceedings dated 27.05.2014 to the post of Mechanic, which post he had earlier been holding. A perusal of the proceedings dated 27.05.2014 does not reveal any reasons why the petitioner has been reverted. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order of reversion, which is said to be devoid of any reason.
At the time of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, has submitted that the promotion was effected in favour of the petitioner on a mistake of fact concerning his qualification. The learned Standing Counsel has further stated that the basic qualification for the promotional post is I.T.I, which, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the petitioner does not possess.
At any rate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contested the said statement and has stated that the petitioner does have the said qualification.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended in reply to the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that, along with the petitioner, another employee possessing similar qualification has been promoted and sent for training, but only the petitioner has been singled out for a discriminatory treatment of reversion without spelling out the reasons.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that before effecting reversion, the petitioner has not been put on notice; nor do the proceedings in question contain any reasoning as to the cause of reversion. In my considered opinion, it is a clear case of infraction of principles of natural justice. At this juncture, it is relevant to make a reference to the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in A. Sarah v. District Educational Officer, Anantapur
[1]
District . In fact, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-
Corporation has strenuously contended that in the light of the ratio laid down therein, there is no need to put the petitioner on notice; since the authorities have only corrected the mistake that has been committed inadvertently, to wit effecting the promotion despite lack of qualification.
A perusal of the said judgment, though, indicates that while correcting a mistake, there is no need to put the effected person on notice, on further scrutiny and on appreciation of the facts involved therein, it is evident that the petitioner therein had not been put on notice because of the long sequence of events prior to her reversion which necessarily put the petitioner therein on sufficient notice. In that context, it is held that it is not an invariable principle that an affected person shall be put on notice under all circumstances. In any event, in the light of the concession made by both the learned counsel that a de novo enquiry may be ordered, now this Court feels that the need to exercise the ratio of the said judgment is obviated.
Accordingly, the order dated 27.05.2014, through which reversion has been effected, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to conduct a
de novo enquiry, after putting the petitioner on notice, and by providing him every opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry. It is made clear that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner shall be treated to have been under suspension. It is further made clear that the respondent authorities may expedite the process of enquiry and complete it as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J Date: 05.06.2014 va
[1] 2000 (6) ALD 454