1

APHC010383222021

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFANDHRAPRADESH

ATAMARAVATI

(SpecialOriginalJurisdiction)

[3328]

THURSDAY,THEFIFTHDAYOFJUNE

TWOTHOUSANDANDTWENTYFIVE

PRESENT

THEHONOURABLESRIJUSTICEGANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA

PRASAD

WRITPETITIONNO:23700OF2021

Between:

1.PVNAGASAI,S/O.P.V.RAMAKRISHNARAO,AGED44YEARS,

ASSISTANTEXECUTIVEENGINEER,0/O.EXECUTIVEENGINEER,

PRIDIVISION,VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNADISTRICT,(PRESENTLY

WORKINGASASSISTANTEXECUTIVEENGINEER,PR,PIUSUB-

DIVISION,VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNADISTRICTONOTHERDUTY).

...PETITIONER

AND

1.THEEXECUTIVEENGINEER,PRIDIVISION,PANCHAYATRAJ

DEPARTMENT,VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNADISTRICT.

2.THESUPERINTENDINGENGINEER,PRCIRCLE,MACHILIPATNAM

ATVIJAYAWADA,KRISHNADISTRICT.

3.THEENGINEERINCHIEF,PANCHAYATRAJDEPARTMENT,STATE

OFANDHRAPRADESH,VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNADISTRICT.

4.THEDEPUTYEXECUTIVEENGINEER,(PR)PANCHAYATRAJ

DEPARTMENT,PIUSUB-DIVISION,VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA

DISTRICT.

5.THESTATEOFANDHRAPRADESH,REP.BYITSPRINCIPAL

SECRETARYTOGOVERNMENT,PANCHAYATRAJANDRURAL

DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIATBUILDING,

AMARAVATHI/VELAGAPUDI,GUNTURDISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

CounselforthePetitioner:

1.PARTYINPERSON

2

CounselfortheRespondent(S):

1.GPFORSERVICESIV

TheCourtmadethefollowing:

ORDER:

HeardSriP.V.NagaSai,Party-in-personandSriY.B.Ramesh,learned

AssistantGovernmentPleaderforServices-IV.

2.TheprayersoughtinthepresentWritPetitionisasunder:

“Inthecircumstances,itisthereforeprayedthat

Hon’bleHighCourtpleasedtoissueaWrit,Orderor

Direction,moreparticularlyoneinthenatureofawritof

MandamusunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndia,

declaringtheLr.Rc.No.5/2019/A1dated31.12.2020

addressedbythe1

st

Respondenttothe2

nd

Respondent

andconsequentialProceedingsNo.A1/206/2010dated

23.01.2021issuedbythe2

nd

Respondentandfurther

consequentialProceedingsinMemoNo.Vig.II/167/2019

dated04.02.2021issuedbythe3

rd

Respondentasarbitrary,

illegal,discriminatory,malafide,erroneous,void,without

jurisdictionandunconstitutionalviolatingArticles14,16and

21oftheConstitutionofIndiaaswellasagainstprinciples

ofnaturaljusticeandsetasidethesame,andalsodeclare

theactionoftheRespondentsinnotpayingthesalaryto

thePetitionerfrom01.01.2021till08.04.2021isequally

arbitrary,illegal,malafide,discriminatory and

unconstitutionalviolatingArticles14,16and21ofthe

ConstitutionofIndiaandissueconsequentialdirection

directingtheRespondentstoforthwithallowandretainthe

PetitionerasAssistantExecutiveEngineerintheofficeof

theExecutiveEngineer,PRIDivision,Vijayawada,Krishna

Districtasperthetransferordersissuedbythe3

rd

RespondentbyProceedingsNo.Ser-II/Transfers-

S.Os./2019-189dated12.07.2019andfurtherdirectthe

RespondentstoforthwithpaythesalarytothePetitioner

from01.01.2021till08.04.2021andpasssuchotherorder

orordersaredeemedfitandproperinthefactsand

circumstancesofthecase.”

3

SubmissionsofWritPetitioner:-

3.ItissubmittedbythePetitioner-in-personthathewasinitiallyappointed

asAssistantExecutiveEngineerinPanchayatRajDepartmenton08.08.2013;

thatafterworkingatvariousplacesinZone-II,hehasbeenpostedas

AssistantExecutiveEngineer,PIUSub-Division,Movva,KrishnaDistrict;that

theEngineer-in-Chief(RespondentNo.3)hastransferredtheWritPetitioner

on12.07.2019andpostedhimasAssistantExecutiveEngineerintheOffice

oftheExecutiveEngineer,PRIDivision,Vijayawada;thattheWritPetitioner

hadjoinedtheOfficeoftheExecutiveEngineer,PRIDivision,Vijayawadaon

15.07.2019;thatwhilehewasworkingasAssistantExecutiveEngineer,the

Engineer-in-Chief(RespondentNo.3)hadissuedaChargeMemoon

15.11.2019(Ex.P.4)indicatingthatanenquiryhasbeenproposedtobeheld

againsttheWritPetitionerandthatthearticleofchargeframedagainstthe

WritPetitioneristhattheVigilanceandEnforcementDepartment,intheir

Reportdated28.05.2019hadstatedtotheeffectthattheWritPetitionerhas

beenmakingfalsecomplaintsandfalseallegationagainsthishigherOfficers

tosettlepersonalscores(Ex.P.5);thatthesaidChargeMemohasbeenissued

ontheallegedviolationofSubRule-3ofRule3andSubRule-3ofRule24of

theAndhraPradeshCivilServices(Conduct)Rules,1964;thatthereafter,after

theconclusionoftheDepartmentalProceedings,theWritPetitionerwasgiven

a‘warning’videProceedingdated19.01.2021nottorepeatsuchthingsinthe

futureandtobemorecarefulinthefuture(Ex.P.7).

4.ItisfurthersubmittedbythePetitioner-in-personinpara7ofthe

AffidavitfiledinsupportoftheWritPetitionthatbeforeimposingtheaforesaid

punishmentvideMemodated19.01.2021,theExecutiveEngineer

(RespondentNo.1)hadsurrenderedthePetitionerfromhisOfficebyissuing

theimpugnedProceedingdated31.12.2020(Ex.P.6)withoutevenmentioning

wherethePetitionerwasbeingsurrendered;thatitissubmittedthatthe

ExecutiveEngineer(RespondentNo.1)doesnothavethepowerandauthority

tosurrenderthePetitionerfromhisjurisdictiontoanyotherAuthorityincluding

4

theRespondentNo.3,inasmuchtheEngineer-in-Chief(RespondentNo.3)is

alonetheCompetentAuthoritytodoso;thatthereafter,theSuperintending

Engineer(RespondentNo.2)hadsubmittedaReportdated01.01.2021tothe

Engineer-in-Chief(RespondentNo.3)(Ex.P.8)statingthatcertainComplaints

havebeenreceivedfromtheContractors,whohavedoneworksunder

MPLADSGrantinKakulapaduVillage,BapulapaduMandal,statingthatthe

PetitionerhereinisnotprocessingtheFinalBillsandhadneglectedthe

routineworkandalsothatthePetitionerhasbeendemandingbribesin

respectofMGNREGSworksinKanumoluandPerikeeduVillages;andthatit

isfurthersubmittedintheReportdated01.01.2021(Ex.P.8)thatthebillsare

keptpendingwithoutforwardingtotheAccountSectionformakingpayment,

whichiscausinginconveniencetotheOfficeandalsocausingtroubletothe

publicandtheContractors.

5.Thedocumentsonrecordwouldalsoindicatethatithasalsobeen

reportedintheLetterofRespondentNo.2toRespondentNo.3thattheWrit

Petitionerhasnotbeenattendingtothedutyregularlyandhewasservedwith

aMemodulycallingforexplanationforhisunauthorizedabsenceandalso

thattheexplanationsubmittedbyhimisnotsatisfactoryandthatwithout

attendingtoduty,theWritPetitionerhasfurnishedsignaturewitholddates

andwhenevertheExecutiveEngineerquestionedtheseirregularities

(includingComplaintsofnon-processingofbillsandunauthorizedabsence

etc.,),theWritPetitionerhasbeentalkingbacktotheExecutiveEngineerby

makingunnecessaryallegationsandbyputtingthesameonpaperandthat

theWritPetitionerisalsoarguingwiththeExecutiveEngineerinpublicandin

thepresenceoftheotherstaffmembersandwomenemployeeswithabusive

language;andthatinviewofwhatisstatedintheReportdated01.01.2021

(Ex.P.8),theSuperintendingEngineer(RespondentNo.2)hadrequestedthe

Engineer-in-Chief(RespondentNo.3)totakebacktheWritPetitioneronthe

groundthattheservicesoftheWritPetitionerarenomorerequiredinhis

OfficeandconsequentlysurrenderedtheWritPetitioneronadministrative

groundswitheffectfrom31.12.2020.

5

6.ThedocumentsonrecordwouldfurtherindicatethattheWritPetitioner

submittedaRepresentationon08.01.2021requestingtheRespondentNo.3to

retaintheWritPetitionerinthesamepostandatthesameplace(Ex.P.9).The

materialonrecordwouldfurtherindicatethatwithoutconsideringtherequest

madebytheWritPetitionerdated08.01.2021,theSuperintendingEngineer

(RespondentNo.2)hadissuedtheimpugnedProceedingdated23.01.2021

directingtheWritPetitionertoworkatPanchayatRaj,PIUSub-Division,

Vijayawada,onotherduty,untilfurtherOrdersandfurtherdirectedtheWrit

PetitionertoreportbeforetheDeputyExecutiveEngineer(P.R),PIUSub-

Division,Vijayawada,immediately.

7.Duringthecourseofhearing,Petitioner-in-personhasalsosubmitted

thattheWritPetitionerhasnotbeenpaidsalaryfromJanuary,2021upto

08.04.2021andhesoughtindulgenceofthisCourtforpaymentofsalaryas

well.Forthispurpose,hehastakenthisCourtthroughtheElectionDuty

CertificateissuedbytheAssistantDistrictElectionAuthoritydated04.02.2021

(Ex.P.17).HehasalsodrawntheattentionofthisCourttotheProceeding

issuedbytheDistrictElectionAuthoritydated06.03.2021directingtheWrit

Petitionertoattendfortrainingon08.03.2021(1

st

training)and12.03.2021

(2

nd

training).Itisindicatedthatthecountingofvoteswillbetakenupfrom

14.03.2021onwardsandhehasalsodrawntheattentionofthisCourtto

reportforcountingofvotesat06:00A.Mon14.03.2021.TheElectionDuty

CertificatewouldindicatethattheWritPetitionerhadreportedtoElectionduty

asStage-IElectionOfficer,Proddutur,Davluru&ChalivendrapalemGram

PanchayatsofKankipaduMandalandperformedhiselectiondutyuntil

finalizationofStage-Iprocessi.e.,on04.02.2021.

CounterAffidavitofRespondentNos.1to5:-

8.TheExecutiveEngineer,PRIDivision,P.RDepartment(Respondent

No.1)hasfiledCounterAffidavitonbehalfofhimselfandonbehalfoftheother

RespondentNos.2to5alongwithmaterialdocuments.Itissubmittedbythe

6

RespondentNo.1thataboutthreeComplaintswerereceivedfromthe

Contractorsdated02.07.2020allegingthattheWritPetitionerisnot

processingthefinalbillpertainingtoworksdoneunderMPLADSGrantin

KakulapaduVillageofBapulapaduMandalandalsowithregardtoMGNREGS

worksinKanumoluandPerikeeduVillagesofBapulapaduMandalandalso

similarinactionwithregardtoMedicharlaVillageinBapulapaduMandal.Itis

statedbyRespondentNo.1thattheWritPetitioneriscausingmuch

inconveniencetothepublicandtheContractorsinrunningthedaytoday

administrativeworks,notonlyonaccountoftheinactionbutalsoonaccount

ofarroganceanddefiantattitudeexhibitedbytheWritPetitionerherein.

9.ItisalsostatedintheCounterAffidavitthattheWritPetitionerhasnot

beenattendingtodutyregularly;thattheRespondentNo.1hasissueda

Memoon26.09.2020statingthattheWritPetitionerhasnotattendedthe

Officefrom18.09.2020upto22.09.2020inanunauthorizedmannerandthat

hehadlatersignedintheAttendanceRegisterevenforthedatesofhis

absencewithoutpermissionfromtheExecutiveEngineer.Itisfurtherstated

thattheRespondentNo.1directedtheWritPetitionertosubmitanexplanation;

and,thaton28.09.2020,theExecutiveEngineeraddressedaLettertothe

SuperintendingEngineeraboutthenon-performanceofthedepartmental-work

onthepartoftheWritPetitionerandtheinconveniencethatisbeingcausedto

thegeneralpublicandtheContractorsduetothenon-performance.The

RespondentNo.1hasfurthersubmittedthatanotherMemowasissuedon

29.09.2020statingthattheWritPetitionerwasagainunauthorizedlyabsenton

28.09.2020withoutproperpermissionorintimationandtherefore,theWrit

Petitionerwasaskedtosubmithisexplanation.

10.ItisfurthersubmittedbyRespondentNo.1thattheSuperintending

Engineer,P.RCircle(RespondentNo.2)hadaddressedaLettertothe

Engineer-in-Chief(RespondentNo.3)dated08.10.2020,bringingittothe

knowledgeoftheEngineer-in-Chief(RespondentNo.3)abouttheconductof

theWritPetitioner.TheExecutiveEngineer(RespondentNo.1)hasalso

7

issuedanotherMemodated26.10.2020totheWritPetitionerstatingthatthe

WritPetitionerhadattendedtodutiesinDurgaTemple,Vijayawada,witheffect

from17.10.2020withoutgettingpriorrelievingOrdersfromtheExecutive

Engineer.

11.AlongwiththeCounterAffidavit,theRespondentNo.1hasalsofileda

LetteraddressedbytheWritPetitionertotheExecutiveEngineerdated

23.12.2020onlytoprojectthehigh-handed,arrogantandabusivebehaviorof

theWritPetitionertowardsalady-officer.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthe

Department,beingunabletotoleratetheunacceptablebehavioroftheWrit

Petitioner,theExecutiveEngineer(RespondentNo.1)hadaddressedaLetter

totheSuperintendingEngineer(RespondentNo.2)on31.12.2020.The

SuperintendingEngineerhadissuedtheProceedingdated23.01.2021stating

thatinviewoftheinstructionsreceivedfromEngineer-in-Chief(Respondent

No.3)dated01.01.2021andalsoVigilanceMemoreceivedon19.01.2021,the

WritPetitionerisorderedtoworkatP.R,P.I.USub-Division,Vijayawada,on

otherdutybasisuntilfurtherOrdersandthereby,directingtheWritPetitioner

toreportbeforetheDeputyExecutiveEngineer,P.R,P.I.U,Sub-Division,

Vijayawada,immediatelyvideProceedingdated23.01.2021.Thereisafurther

directionthatthepayandallowanceoftheWritPetitionershallbeclaimedat

theoriginalplacei.e.,fromtheOfficeoftheExecutiveEngineer,PRIDivision,

Vijayawada,asusual,afterreceiptofAttendanceCertificate.Itisfurther

submittedthateventhoughtheWritPetitionerwasdirectedtoreportduty

immediatelyvideProceedingsdated23.01.2021,theWritPetitionerhas

reportedtodutyonlyon08.04.2021.ItistheclaimoftheRespondentsthat

theWritPetitionerhasnotreportedtodutiesuntil08.04.2021.

SubmissionsofSriY.B.Ramesh,learnedAssistantGovernmentPleader

forServices-IV:-

12.ItissubmittedbySriY.B.Ramesh,learnedAssistantGovernment

PleaderforServices-IVthatthenatureoftheconductoftheWritPetitioner

8

wouldindicatethatheisunsuitableforholdingapostintheGovernment

ServicewheretheGovernmentServantsarerequiredtoperformpublic

functions.LearnedAssistantGovernmentPleaderhasdrawntheattentionof

thisCourttoaLetteraddressedbytheWritPetitioneron23.12.2020tothe

ExecutiveEngineer(photocopyoftheoriginalhandwrittenLetteroftheWrit

PetitionerisfiledalongwiththeCounterAffidavit).LearnedAssistant

GovernmentPleaderhastakenthisCourtthroughthecontentsofthesaid

LetterwheretheWritPetitionerhasmadecertainallegationsagainstthe

PersonalAssistant(P.A)totheExecutiveEngineerwithabusivelanguageto

theeffectthatsheis“eatingfood(or)anythingfromthebathroom?’’for

addressingtheWritPetitionerinsingularmanner.LearnedAssistant

GovernmentPleaderhasalsosubmittedthattheWritPetitionerhas

deliberatelysuppressedvariouseventsthathavetranspiredfrom02.07.2020

upto19.01.2021.HehasalsodrawntheattentionofthisCourttothe

contentsoftheProceedingsofvariousAuthoritiesdated02.07.2020,the

ComplaintsoftheContractorsandtheotherProceedingsthattranspired

betweentheAuthoritiesdated26.09.2020,28.09.2020,29.09.2020,

08.10.2020,26.10.2020,23.12.2020,31.12.2020,01.01.2021and19.01.2021.

HewouldsubmitthatthesearesubstantiveProceedingswhichtookplace

betweentheAuthoritiesandalsoagainsttheWritPetitionerandaretherefore,

materialfactsanddocuments.Hewouldsubmitthatthesematerialfactsand

documentshavebeendeliberatelysuppressedbytheWritPetitionerthereby,

givingapicturetothisHon’bleCourtthattheWritPetitionerisbeingunduly

harassedbytheSuperiorAuthorities.Hewouldsubmitthatthereareseveral

issuespendingagainsttheWritPetitionerintermsofnotperforminghisduties

properlythereby,renderinghimselftobeadeadwoodintheDepartmentand

alsohisactsofarrogance,defiance,unauthorizedabsencefromdutiesand

alsouseofabusivelanguageevenagainstthewomenstaffincludingP.Ato

theExecutiveEngineerandtheissuestouchinguponintegrityinperforming

hisduties.

9

13.VideOrderdated16.11.2023,thisCourthaddirectedtheRespondent

No.5namelythePrincipalSecretarytoGovernmenttoproducetheOriginal

RecordpertainingtotheWritPetitionerbeforetheCourtwithafurther

directiontodeputearesponsibleOfficerwhoiscapabletoanswerthequeries

ofthisCourt.OneSriA.VenkateswaraRao,whoisworkingasExecutive

Engineer,ispresentbeforetheCourtincompliancewiththeOrderofthis

Courtdated16.11.2023.

Issue:-

14.HavingconsideredthesubmissionsoftheWritPetitionerandthe

RespondentNos.1to5,theissuethatfallsforconsiderationis“whetherthe

Petitionerisentitledforthereliefthatisaskedfor”?

Analysis:-

15.ThisCourthasperusedalltheProceedingswhichhavebeenreferredto

hereinabove.InsofarasthemainreliefthatissoughtbytheWritPetitioneris

concerned,hehadassailedtheProceedingofRespondentNo.2dated

23.01.2021(Ex.P.11)wherein,theWritPetitionerwasdirectedtoreportbefore

theDeputyExecutiveEngineerforthwithandthattheDeputyExecutive

EngineerwasinstructedtoadmittheAssistantExecutiveEngineer

immediatelyandreportcompliance.

16.BeforethisCourtproceedstodealwiththefactsofthiscase,atthevery

outset,thisCourtwouldfeelitappropriatetorefertothemostcardinal

principles,whicharerequiredtobefollowedbyeverypublicservant,without

deviation,whichareasunder:

i. Efficiencyinadministration;

ii.Espritdecorps;and,

iii.Integrity.

17.Theabovethreefeaturesarenotjustessentialbutarerather

indispensableforeverypublicservantforthepurposeofmaintainingefficiency

10

intheadministrationandthiscanbeachievedonlybyadheringtotheteam

spirit(espritdecorps)andintegrityinconductaspublicservants.Absenceof

anyoneoftheseelementswouldderailtheorganizedandorganicfunctioning

oftheGovernmentDepartmentswhichareestablishedforcateringtothe

needsofthepublic.Inademocracy,theGovernmentworksforthepeople,of

thepeopleandbythepeople.IfaGovernmentServantislackinganyoneof

thesecardinalfeatures,theultimatecausalitywouldbethepubliccause.

18.Afterhavingnotedtheessentialfeaturesthatarerequiredtobe

possessedbyapublicservant,thisCourtwouldnoticethatthefactsinthe

presentcasewouldindicatethattheWritPetitioner’sconducthaschequered

history.Althoughtheallegations,whichareraisedagainsttheWritPetitioner

bywayofMemosandReports,arestillintheinvestigation/inquirystage,

sufficeittonoticethatwithregardtooneProceedingdated19.01.2021

(Ex.P.7),theWritPetitionerwaswarnednottorepeatmakingofcomplaints

againsttheSuperiorAuthoritiesinthefutureandalsotobecarefulinthe

future.DehorsethisProceeding,anewsetofallegationscametolight

againsttheWritPetitioner,wheretheContractors,whohaveperformedworks

undertheMPLADSGrantaswellasundertheMGNREGSschemewere

allegedlyharassedbytheWritPetitionerintheformofdeliberateinactionwith

afurtherdemandforbribes.TheseComplaintshavebeenreceivedbythe

ExecutiveEngineer(RespondentNo.1)andthesamehadbeendulyreported

totheSuperintendingEngineer(RespondentNo.2)aswell.

19.Whiletheseareunderconsideration,ittranspiresfromrecordthatthe

WritPetitionerhasresortedtoactsofunwarrantedbehaviorandwritingletters

inakindoftoneandtenor,whichcannotbeacceptedbythecivilizedworld.

Suchconduct,ifprovedagainsttheWritPetitioner,wouldundoubtedlyrender

himunbecomingofapublicservant.ThisCourthasalsonoticed,asitisa

matterofrecord,thattheWritPetitionerhadaddressedaLettertothe

ExecutiveEngineerabouttheconductofhisPersonalSecretary,whoisa

woman,hadgonetotheextentofsayingthat‘sheiseatingfoodoranything

11

fromthebathroom?Alltheseareunderinvestigationandconsiderationbefore

theSuperiorAuthorities,butattheoutset,withoutcommentinganythingabout

theconductoftheWritPetitioner,evenassumingthatonepercentofthese

allegationswereprovedtobetrue,thenfortheperpetrationofsuchconduct

onthepartoftheWritPetitioner,heisnotentitledtobecontinuedinthe

serviceanymore.

20.Theaboveissueshavebecomerelevantinthepresentcasebecauseof

thefactthattheharmony,coordinationandcooperationwhichare

indispensablefeaturesinpublicservicearenowruffledinthiscasetosome

extent.Howthebelligerentconductofonepersonasisreflectedfromthe

ProceedingsofRespondentNo.1dated31.12.2020andtheletterwrittenby

theWritPetitionerdated23.12.2020(filedalongwiththeCounterAffidavit)to

theRespondentNo.1canthrowtheentireDepartmentintoatailspinwould

emergefromthefactsofthepresentcase.TheHon’bleApexCourthastime

andagainreiteratedtheindispensabilityofbrotherhood,coordinationand

cooperationthatleadtoharmoniousrelationshipbetweentheSuperiorsand

theSubordinatesinthecaseofDelhiTransportCorporationVs.D.T.C.

MazdoorCongressandOrs.:1991Supp(1)SCC600.Para317ofthesaid

Judgmentisusefullyextractedhereunder:

“Needforharmonybetweensocialinterestand

individualright

317.Undoubtedly efficiency ofthe

administrationandthedisciplineamongthe

employeesisveryvitaltothesuccessfulfunctioning

ofaninstitutionormaximumproductionofgoodsor

propermaintenanceoftheservices.Disciplineinthat

regardamongtheemployeesisitsessentialfacetand

hastobemaintained.Thesocietyisvitallyinterested

intheduedischargeofthedutiesbythegovernment

employeesoremployeesofcorporatebodiesor

statutoryauthoritiesorinstrumentalitiesunderArticle

12oftheConstitution.AsheldinTulsiramPatelcase

[(1985)3SCC398,424-25:1985SCC(L&S)672:1985

Supp2SCR131,166]thepublicarevitallyinterested

intheefficiencyandintegrityofthepublicservice.The

governmentorcorporateemployeesare,afterall,paid

12

fromthepublicexchequertowhicheveryone

contributeseitherbywayofdirectorindirecttaxes.

Theemployeesarechargedwithpublicdutyandthey

shouldperformtheirpublicdutieswithdeepsenseof

responsibility.Thecollectiveresponsibilityofallthe

officersfromtopmosttothelowestmaximisesthe

efficientpublicadministration.Theymust,therefore,

beheldtohaveindividualaswellascollective

responsibilityindischargeoftheirdutiesfaithfully,

honestlywithfulldedicationandutmostdevotionto

dutyfortheprogressofthecountry.Equallythe

employeesmustalsohaveafeelingthattheyhavesecurity

oftenure.Theyshouldalsohaveaninvolvementontheir

partintheorgnisationorinstitution,corporationetc.They

needassuranceofserviceandtheyneedprotection.The

publicinterestandthepublicgooddemandthatthosewho

dischargetheirdutieshonestly,efficientlyandwithasense

ofdevotionanddedicationtodutyshouldreceiveadequate

protectionandsecurityoftenure.Equallyinefficient,

dishonestandcorruptorwhobecamesecurityrisk

shouldbeweededoutsothatsuccessfulfunctioning

oftheindustryormanufactureofthegoodsor

renderingofserviceswouldbeavailableatthe

maximumleveltothesocietyandsocietythereby

receivesoptimumbenefitfromthepublicmoney

expendedonthemassalaryandotherperks.

Therefore,whenasituationenvisagedunderstatuteor

statutoryruleorregulationorinstructionshaving

statutoryforcetoremoveordismissanemployeethe

questionariseswhethertheyneedatleastminimum

protectionoffairplayinaction.”

21.InIndianRailwaysConstructionCompanyLimitedVs.AjayKumar:

(2003)4SCC579,theHon’bleSupremeCourt,althoughhaddealtwiththe

caserelatingtoindisciplineofaMemberoftheEmployeesUnion,hadlaid

downcertainprincipleswithregardtotheconductofanEmployeein

GovernmentService.Inthiscontext,paras27to29ofthesaidJudgmentare

usefullyextractedhereunder:

“27.Wefindsubstanceinthepleaoflearned

counselfortheappellantthatanemployeeevenifhe

claimstobeamemberoftheemployees'unionhastoact

withasenseofdisciplineanddecorum.Presentationof

demandsrelatingtoemployeescannotbeexhibitedby

musclepower.Itmustbeborneinmindthatevery

employeeisapartofafunctioningsystem,whichmay

13

collapseifitsfunctioningisaffectedimproperly.Forsmooth

functioning,everyemployerdependsuponadisciplined

employees'force.Inthenameofpresentingdemandsthey

cannotholdtheemployertoransom.Atthesametimethe

employerhasadutytolookintoandasfaraspracticable,

obviatethegenuinegrievancesoftheemployees.The

workingatmosphereshouldbecordial,asthatwouldbein

thebestinterestoftheestablishment.Unlessan

atmosphereofcordialityexiststhereislikelihoodof

inefficientworkingandthatwouldnotbeintheinterestof

theestablishmentandwouldberatherdestructiveof

commoninterestofbothemployerandemployees.

28.Ifanactoromissionofanemployeereflects

uponhischaracter,reputation,integrityordevotiontoduty

orisanunbecomingact,certainlytheemployercantake

actionagainsthim.Inthiscontext,referencemaybemade

tothefollowingobservationsofLopes,C.J.inPearcev.

Foster[(1886)17QBD536:(1886-90)AllERRepExt

1752:55LJQB306:54LT664(CA)](QBDp.542):

“Ifaservantconductshimselfinaway

inconsistentwiththefaithfuldischargeofhisduty

intheservice,itismisconductwhichjustifies

immediatedismissal.Thatmisconduct,according

tomyview,neednotbemisconductinthe

carryingonoftheserviceofthebusiness.Itis

sufficientifitisconductwhichisprejudicialoris

likelytobeprejudicialtotheinterestsortothe

reputationofthemaster,andthemasterwillbe

justified,notonlyifhediscoversitatthetime,but

alsoifhediscoversitafterwards,indismissing

thatservant.”

Thisviewwasreiteratedbyathree-JudgeBenchofthis

CourtinUnionofIndiav.K.K.Dhawan[(1993)2SCC56:

1993SCC(L&S)325:(1993)24ATC1:AIR1993SC

1478].

29.Here,theallegedactshavenotbeen

disbelievedbytheHighCourt.Theyareprimafacieactsof

misconduct.Therefore,theemployercanlegitimatelyraise

apleaoflosingconfidenceintheemployee,warrantinghis

non-continuanceintheemployment.Thetime-gapis

anothersignificantfactor.”

22.InM.P.ElectricityBoardVs.JagdishChandraSharma:(2005)3

SCC401,theHon’bleApexCourtdealtwiththesituationwheretheemployee

oftheMadhyaPradeshElectricityBoardwasfoundguiltyofhittingand

injuringhisSuperiorOfficeratworkplace.Inpara9ofthesaidJudgment,the

Hon’bleSupremeCourtheldasunder:

14

“9.Inthecaseonhand,theemployeehasbeen

foundguiltyofhittingandinjuringhissuperiorofficeratthe

workplace,obviouslyinthepresenceofotheremployees.

Thisclearlyamountedtobreachofdisciplineinthe

organisation.Disciplineattheworkplaceinanorganisation

liketheemployerherein,isthesinequanonforthe

efficientworkingoftheorganisation.Whenanemployee

breachessuchdisciplineandtheemployerterminateshis

services,itisnotopentoaLabourCourtoranIndustrial

Tribunaltotaketheviewthatthepunishmentawardedis

shockinglydisproportionatetothechargeproved.Wehave

alreadyreferredtotheviewsofthisCourt.ToquoteJack

Chan,‘disciplineisaformofcivillyresponsiblebehaviour

whichhelpsmaintainsocialorderandcontributestothe

preservation,ifnotadvancement,ofcollectiveinterestsof

societyatlarge’.Obviouslythisideaismorerelevantin

consideringtheworkingofanorganisationlikethe

employerhereinoranindustrialundertaking.Obedienceto

authorityinaworkplaceisnotslavery.Itisnotviolativeof

one'snaturalrights.Itisessentialfortheprosperityofthe

organisationaswellasthatofitsemployees.Wheninsuch

asituation,apunishmentofterminationisawardedfor

hittingandinjuringasuperiorofficersupervisingthework

oftheemployee,withnoextenuatingcircumstance

established,itcannotbesaidtobenotjustified.Itcannot

certainlybetermedundulyharshordisproportionate.The

LabourCourtandtheHighCourtinthiscasetotally

misdirectedthemselveswhileexercisingtheirjurisdiction.

TheIndustrialCourtmadethecorrectapproachandcame

totherightconclusion.”

23.Inanothercase,theHon’bleSupremeCourthasconsideredthe

replyingeffectofbelligerenceoftheemployeeandtheconsequenceswithin

theDepartmentonaccountofthismisconduct.InChennaiMetropolitan

WaterSupplyandSewerageBoardandOrs.Vs.T.T.MuraliBabu:(2014)

4SCC108,theHon’bleSupremeCourtheldinpara33ofthesaidJudgment

asunder:

“33.Anotheraspectneedstobenoted.The

respondentwasaJuniorEngineer.Regardbeinghadto

hisofficialposition,itwasexpectedofhimtomaintain

discipline,actwithresponsibility,performhisdutywith

sincerityandservetheinstitutionwithhonesty.Thiskind

ofconductcannotbecountenancedasitcreatesa

concavityintheworkcultureandushersinindisciplinein

anorganisation.Inthiscontext,wemayfruitfullyquotea

15

passagefromGovt.ofIndiav.GeorgePhilip[(2006)13

SCC1:(2008)2SCC(L&S)365]:(SCCp.14,para18)

“18.…Inacaseinvolvingoverstayofleave

andabsencefromduty,grantingsixmonths'

timetojoindutyamountstonotonlygiving

premiumtoindisciplinebutiswhollysubversive

oftheworkcultureintheorganisation.Article

51-A(j)oftheConstitutionlaysdownthatit

shallbethedutyofeverycitizentostrive

towardsexcellenceinallspheresofindividual

andcollectiveactivitysothatthenation

constantlyrisestohigherlevelsofendeavour

andachievement.Thiscannotbeachieved

unlesstheemployeesmaintaindisciplineand

devotiontoduty.Courtsshouldnotpasssuch

orderswhichinsteadofachievingthe

underlyingspiritandobjectsofPartIV-Aofthe

Constitutionhavethetendencytonegateor

destroythesame.”

Werespectfullyreiteratethesaidfeelingandrestatewith

thehopethattheemployeesinanyorganisationshould

adheretodisciplinefornotonlyachievingpersonal

excellencebutforcollectivegoodofanorganisation.

Whenwesaythis,wemaynotbeunderstoodtohave

statedthattheemployersshouldbeharshtoimpose

gravepunishmentonanymisconduct.Anamiable

atmosphereinanorganisationdevelopstheworkculture

andtheemployerandtheemployeesareexpectedto

rememberthesameasapreciousvalueforsystemic

development.”

24.Havingconsideredthesettledlaw,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatbusy

bodieswhocontinuetounleashavolleyofunsubstantiatedallegationsagainst

theSuperiorsisaconductwhichisregulatedbySubRule3ofRule3andSub

Rule3ofRule24oftheA.P.CivilServices(Conduct)Rules,1964.Itwould

thenbearequirementonthepartoftheOfficialRespondentstoinitiate

appropriateenquirytoverifytheveracityoftheallegationstouchinguponthe

conductoftheWritPetitioner,asprojectedbytheOfficialRespondentsand

thereby,asuitableactionmaybeinitiated.Admittedly,theComplaintdated

02.07.2020againsttheWritPetitionerandtheProceedingstranspired

betweentheAuthoritiesdated26.09.2020,28.09.2020,29.09.2020,

08.10.2020,26.10.2020,23.12.2020,31.12.2020,01.01.2021and

19.01.2021whicharematerialfacts,havebeensuppressedbytheWrit

16

Petitionerandtheywerebroughttolightonlythroughthematerialdocuments

filedbytheOfficialRespondents.Courtscannotpermitbusybodieswhoare

servingaspublicservantstotakeundueadvantagefromminorprocedural

lapsesonthepartoftheExecutive.Courtshallnotcometotherescueof

suchpublicservantswhoseconductaffectsthepublicinterest.Theactsof

belligerenceareananti-thesisingovernmentalservice/publicservice.Ifacts

ofbelligerenceareperpetratedbythepublicservants,suchactswould

damage/destroytheentirefabricintheconcernedDepartmentbesidesbeing

anexamplewhichtheotherlikemindedorprospectivebelligerentstaffmight

liketofollowandemulate,whichwilleventuallybedetrimentaltothe‘public

cause’.Thereareenoughlawsonthestatutebookprescribingparametersto

weed-outdeadwoodandpeoplewithdoubtfulintegrityinasmuchasthe

arroganceandcharacteristicofegoandpridemayhaveanadverseimpacton

thewholeDepartment.Forthepublicservant,publicdutyisparamount

whereas,ifsuchpublicservantsaregivingstep-motherlytreatmenttothevery

publicservicecannotbetolerated.Courtsmustbevigilanttoseetoitthat

publicservantswhoactasbusybodieswouldnotabusetheprocessofCourt

bypointingoutfewprocedurallapsesforsecuringthereliefwhiletheconduct

ofsuchpublicservantisunderscrutinybytheAuthorities.

25.Inthisbackground,itmustbeclearlystatedattheveryoutset,this

CourtisneitherexoneratingtheallegedconductoftheWritPetitionernorisit

endorsingthe‘allegedconductofhighhandednessandmisbehaviour’onthe

partoftheRespondentsherein.ItisnoticedthattheWritPetitionerhad

alreadyundergoneoneDisciplinaryProceedingintermsofaChargeMemo

issuedon15.11.2019andhewasadmonished/warnednottorepeatsuch

thingsinthefutureandtobemorecarefulinthefuturevideProceedingdated

19.01.2021.RegardingtheotherProceedingrelatingtotheComplaints

receivedbytheExecutiveEngineeron02.07.2020byvariousContractorsof

MPLADSGrantandMGNREGSScheme,theExecutiveEngineerhadalready

informedtheSuperintendingEngineervideProceedingdated28.09.2020.It

alsotranspiresfromrecordthattwootherMemoshavebeenissuedon

17

26.09.2020and26.10.2020whichhavetobelogicallytakenforward.Atthis

stage,thisCourtwouldnotliketocommentaboutthesufficiencyorotherwise

oftheevidencetoimplicatetheWritPetitionerinasmuchasthesameisthe

domainoftheExecutivetotakeacallontheseProceedings.Sufficeittosay

thatthereissufficientmaterialonrecordthatwouldindicatethattheWrit

Petitionerdoesnotdeserveanyindulgence.TheimpugnedProceedingdated

31.12.2020(Ex.P.6)issufficienttoindicatethattheconduct,asprojectedin

thesaidProceeding,isrequiredtobefurtherinquiredinto.

26.Withthekindofbackground,asnotedhereinabove,thisCourtisofthe

opinionthatthereisnoillegalityintheSurrenderProceedingsdated

23.01.2021(Ex.P.11).Beforepartingwiththiscase,thisCourtmakesitclear

thatthisCourthasnotrenderedanyadversefindinginsofarastheallegations

whicharemadeagainsttheWritPetitionerareconcernedsincethesameare

underconsiderationbeforetheauthorities.Therefore,apartfromthegeneral

opinionexpressedbythisCourt,anyspecificcommentmadeshallnotbe

treatedasafindingsincethesamehasnotyetbeeninquiredintobythe

ExecutiveAuthorities.

27.Withtheaboveobservations,thisCourtisoftheopinionthattheWrit

Petitionisdevoidofanymerit.Accordingly,thisWritPetitionisdismissed.No

orderastocosts.

28.InterlocutoryApplications,ifany,standclosedintermsofthisorder.

_________________________________

GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNAPRASAD,J

Dt:05.06.2025

Vns

18

50

HON'BLESRIJUSTICEGANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNAPRASAD

WRITPETITIONNo.23700of2021

Dt:05.06.2025

Vns