Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Aphc 1662653

    Uploaded by

    Tejasri Pinnapareddy

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aphc 1662653

    Uploaded by

    Tejasri Pinnapareddy
    17 views6 pages

    Original Title

    aphc-1662653

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    17 views6 pages

    Aphc 1662653

    Uploaded by

    Tejasri Pinnapareddy

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 6

    VERDICTUM.

    IN

    APHC010343602024
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
    AT AMARAVATI [3487]
    (Special Original Jurisdiction)

    TUESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER


    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

    PRESENT

    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

    THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

    WRIT APPEAL NO: 729/2024

    Between:

    The Chief Commissioner Of State Tax (ap), and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

    AND

    Sri G Prabhakara Murthy ...RESPONDENT

    Counsel for the Appellant(S):

    1. GP FOR SERVICES I

    Counsel for the Respondent:

    1. J.N VENKATA SURESH KUMAR


    VERDICTUM.IN
    2

    The Court made the following:

    JUDGMENT:
    (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Narendar)

    1. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the

    appellants and learned counsel for the Respondent/Writ Petitioner.

    2. The intra-Court appeal is preferred assailing the order of the learned

    Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the disciplinary

    proceedings midway, i.e., at the stage when the enquiry had been completed,

    the report had been submitted to the disciplinary authority, and the disciplinary

    authority had issued the second show cause notice enclosing the report and

    calling for his explanation.

    3. The approach of the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion,

    amounts to usurping the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, which we find

    to be impermissible. The learned Single Judge could not have usurped the

    role of the disciplinary authority and scuttled the proceedings midway. The

    statute vests the authority, either to impose or not to impose punishment after

    appreciating the matter on merits, on the disciplinary authority only. By the

    impugned order, this process has been preempted.

    4. In fact, there was no adversarial order, resulting in no cause of action

    to canvass or maintain the Writ Petition. The mere pendency of the inquiry or

    the Writ Petitioner’s apprehension of any adverse orders cannot be a ground

    to maintain the Writ Petition. It is apparent that no rights of the Writ Petitioner

    have been abridged, nor has the inquiry resulted in altering the service
    VERDICTUM.IN
    3

    conditions. In that context, the mere issuance of the show cause notice would

    not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain and appreciate the Writ

    Petition. In the absence of any right of the litigant being adversely affected, we

    do not see how the learned Single Judge could have heard and ordered the

    Writ Petition.

    5. Appreciation of the facts is the domain of the statutory authorities,

    specifically the disciplinary authority in this case. We had directed the

    Appellant/Department to produce the records relating to the refund claim,

    which has been the contention between the Appellant/Department and the

    Employee. In compliance with this direction, the records have been produced

    and given to the learned counsel representing the Respondent/Writ Petitioner,

    who has perused them and submitted that there are no records relating to the

    processing of the claim or consideration of the pending tax revision cases. He

    further contends that the charge itself could not have been framed in the

    absence of sufficient material. Additionally, he argues that there has been a

    gross miscarriage of justice, as neither the inquiry officer nor the presiding

    officer furnished the documents sought by him.

    6. In our considered opinion, these are grounds of defense that could have

    been better appreciated by the disciplinary authority than by this Court in the

    exercise of powers vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

    7. The learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, has erred in taking

    up the role of the disciplinary authority and in attempting to substitute the

    opinion of the disciplinary authority with the opinion of this Court, which we
    VERDICTUM.IN
    4

    find to be impermissible. The learned Single Judge could not have usurped or

    preempted the statutorily empowered disciplinary authority from forming an

    opinion on imposing or not imposing any penalties. The authority to impose or

    not impose any penalty, as provided under the rules, is in the exclusive

    domain of the disciplinary authority, an action that has now been preempted

    by the impugned order. In our opinion, the Writ Petition itself was premature in

    the absence of any adverse impact on the rights or service conditions of the

    Writ Petitioner.

    8. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in allowing the appeal.

    Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside,

    and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary/competent authority for

    consideration of the reply to be submitted by the Respondent/Writ Petitioner.

    Thereafter, the disciplinary/competent authority shall pass necessary orders

    within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the reply to the second show

    cause notice. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner shall submit his reply within

    three (3) weeks from today, without waiting to receive a copy of this order. In

    the event no reply to the second show cause notice is submitted by the

    Respondent/Writ Petitioner within three (3) weeks from today, it is open to the

    disciplinary/competent authority to pass such orders as it deems appropriate,

    based on the facts and circumstances of the case and strictly in accordance

    with law. There shall be no order as to costs.


    VERDICTUM.IN
    5

    As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ

    Appeal shall stand closed.

    ___________________
    JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

    __________________________
    JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

    Date: 15.10.2024
    DNV
    VERDICTUM.IN
    6

    89

    THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR


    and
    THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

    WRIT APPEAL No.729 of 2024

    Date: 15.10.2024

    DNV

    You might also like