G.SATYAMMA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while working as Town Mission Coordinator, the respondents have issued suspension orders on 19/6/2020 and on the same day, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner framing two (02) charges and asked the petitioner to submit her explanation. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted a letter dtd. 29/6/2020, requesting for supply of the documents and also submitted her explanation on 1/7/2020. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice on 27/11/2021 seeking to terminate the services of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted representation on 3/12/2021 requesting to supply the report of the enquiry officer to submit her proper explanation. Without considering the same, another show cause notice was issued on 31/3/2022, without furnishing the enquiry report. Consequently, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.34055 of 2022 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 30/8/2022 directing the respondents to furnish the documents to the petitioner. In compliance with the orders of this Court, the respondents have not supplied all the documents and without furnishing the documents and without waiting for the explanation from the petitioner, the respondents passed an order dtd. 19/9/2022 removing the petitioner from service along with three (3) others. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.219 of 2023 and initially, this Court passed an interim orders dtd. 22/9/2021 directing the respondents to supply enquiry report and further, the said writ petition was disposed of on 30/6/2023. Thereafter, the respondent No.3, vide letter dtd. 7/10/2023, provided the enquiry report to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to submit her explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted elaborative representation on 18/10/2023 requesting to drop further action in the matter. When there was no further action in the matter, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22366 of 2023 seeking to reinstate the petitioner into service in pursuance of the orders of the Court dtd. 30/6/2023 in W.P.No.219 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 18/3/2025 directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for reinstatement forthwith as Town Mission Coordinator under MEPMA with effect from 30/6/2023 as per G.O.Ms.No.86, GAD, dtd. 8/3/1994 and G.O.Ms.No.526, GAD, dtd. 19/8/2008 in accordance with law and take a decision thereon. While it being so, the respondent No.2 issued show cause notice in ROC.No.425135/E1-ESTM/MEPMA/2022, dtd. 15/5/2025, stating that the report of the enquiry officer discloses that, the charges framed against the petitioner were held proved. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to submit her explanation why she should not be terminated for the reasons mentioned therein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the show cause notice issued by the respondents is without power or jurisdiction. The post of Town Mission Coordinator at Corporation was shown as Level-3 Officer. As per the HR Policy No.8, Terms and Conditions for Control and Appeal of MEPMA Employees, the Project Director will be the competent authority to place any employee of Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 working under DPMU, under suspension. Policy No.8.4 speaks about disciplinary authority and the Project Director, DPMU for the employee of Level 1 to 3, who are working at district level may impose any of the penalties specified under condition No.8.3.1. The Project Director DPMU is the competent authority to impose any penalty against the petitioner. The Mission Director, who is appellate authority has given the show cause notice for imposing the penalty of termination against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is losing an opportunity of filing an appeal, if any, orders to be passed. A higher authority which is particularly an appellate authority, cannot issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. Even on the said ground also, a show cause notice is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. The authority who issued the show cause notice is the appellate authority and he has disclosed his mind in the show cause notice, there is no meaning in petitioner submitting explanation to the show cause notice. It is an empty formality. In view of the same, learned counsel requested this Court to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order dtd. 15/5/2025.