Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
P V Naga Sai vs The Executive Engineer on 5 June, 2025
1
APHC010383222021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 23700 OF 2021
Between:
1.P V NAGA SAI, S/O. P.V. RAMA KRISHNA RAO, AGED 44 YEARS,
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, 0/O. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PRI DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, (PRESENTLY
WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR, PIU SUB-
DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ON OTHER DUTY).
...PETITIONER
AND
1.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, PANCHAYAT RAJ
DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PR CIRCLE, MACHILIPATNAM
AT VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
3.THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, STATE
OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4.THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (PR)PANCHAYAT RAJ
DEPARTMENT, PIU SUB-DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
5.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING,
AMARAVATHI/VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.PARTY IN PERSON
2
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES IV
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard Sri P.V. Naga Sai, Party-in-person and Sri Y.B. Ramesh, learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Services-IV.
2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:
“In the circumstances, it is therefore prayed that
Hon’ble High Court pleased to issue a Writ, Order or
Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of
Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
declaring the Lr.Rc.No.5/2019/A1 dated 31.12.2020
addressed by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent
and consequential Proceedings No.A1/206/2010 dated
23.01.2021 issued by the 2nd Respondent and further
consequential Proceedings in Memo No.Vig.II/167/2019
dated 04.02.2021 issued by the 3rd Respondent as arbitrary,
illegal, discriminatory, malafide, erroneous, void, without
jurisdiction and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India as well as against principles
of natural justice and set aside the same, and also declare
the action of the Respondents in not paying the salary to
the Petitioner from 01.01.2021 till 08.04.2021 is equally
arbitrary, illegal, malafide, discriminatory and
unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and issue consequential direction
directing the Respondents to forthwith allow and retain the
Petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer in the office of
the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Vijayawada, Krishna
District as per the transfer orders issued by the 3rd
Respondent by Proceedings No.Ser-II/Transfers-
S.Os./2019-189 dated 12.07.2019 and further direct the
Respondents to forthwith pay the salary to the Petitioner
from 01.01.2021 till 08.04.2021 and pass such other order
or orders are deemed fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3
Submissions of Writ Petitioner:-
3. It is submitted by the Petitioner-in-person that he was initially appointed
as Assistant Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department on 08.08.2013;
that after working at various places in Zone-II, he has been posted as
Assistant Executive Engineer, PIU Sub-Division, Movva, Krishna District; that
the Engineer-in-Chief (Respondent No.3) has transferred the Writ Petitioner
on 12.07.2019 and posted him as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Office
of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Vijayawada; that the Writ Petitioner
had joined the Office of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Vijayawada on
15.07.2019; that while he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, the
Engineer-in-Chief (Respondent No.3) had issued a Charge Memo on
15.11.2019 (Ex.P.4) indicating that an enquiry has been proposed to be held
against the Writ Petitioner and that the article of charge framed against the
Writ Petitioner is that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, in their
Report dated 28.05.2019 had stated to the effect that the Writ Petitioner has
been making false complaints and false allegation against his higher Officers
to settle personal scores(Ex.P.5); that the said Charge Memo has been issued
on the alleged violation of Sub Rule-3 of Rule 3 and Sub Rule-3 of Rule 24 of
the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964; that thereafter, after
the conclusion of the Departmental Proceedings, the Writ Petitioner was given
a ‘warning’ vide Proceeding dated 19.01.2021 not to repeat such things in the
future and to be more careful in the future (Ex.P.7).
4. It is further submitted by the Petitioner-in-person in para 7 of the
Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that before imposing the aforesaid
punishment vide Memo dated 19.01.2021, the Executive Engineer
(Respondent No.1) had surrendered the Petitioner from his Office by issuing
the impugned Proceeding dated 31.12.2020 (Ex.P.6) without even mentioning
where the Petitioner was being surrendered; that it is submitted that the
Executive Engineer (Respondent No.1) does not have the power and authority
to surrender the Petitioner from his jurisdiction to any other Authority including
4
the Respondent No.3, inasmuch the Engineer-in-Chief (Respondent No.3) is
alone the Competent Authority to do so; that thereafter, the Superintending
Engineer (Respondent No.2) had submitted a Reportdated 01.01.2021 to the
Engineer-in-Chief (Respondent No.3) (Ex.P.8) stating that certain Complaints
have been received from the Contractors, who have done works under
MPLADS Grant in Kakulapadu Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, stating that the
Petitioner herein is not processing the Final Bills and had neglected the
routine work and also that the Petitioner has been demanding bribes in
respect of MGNREGS works in Kanumolu and Perikeedu Villages; and that it
is further submitted in the Report dated 01.01.2021 (Ex.P.8) that the bills are
kept pending without forwarding to the Account Section for making payment,
which is causing inconvenience to the Office and also causing trouble to the
public and the Contractors.
5. The documents on record would also indicate that it has also been
reported in the Letter of Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.3 that the Writ
Petitioner has not been attending to the duty regularly and he was served with
a Memo duly calling for explanation for his unauthorized absence and also
that the explanation submitted by him is not satisfactory and that without
attending to duty, the Writ Petitioner has furnished signature with old dates
and whenever the Executive Engineer questioned these irregularities
(including Complaints of non-processing of bills and unauthorized absence
etc.,), the Writ Petitioner has been talking back to the Executive Engineer by
making unnecessary allegations and by putting the same on paper and that
the Writ Petitioner is also arguing with the Executive Engineer in public and in
the presence of the other staff members and women employees with abusive
language; and that in view of what is stated in the Report dated 01.01.2021
(Ex.P.8), the Superintending Engineer (Respondent No.2) had requested the
Engineer-in-Chief (Respondent No.3) to take back the Writ Petitioner on the
ground that the services of the Writ Petitioner are no more required in his
Office and consequently surrendered the Writ Petitioner on administrative
grounds with effect from 31.12.2020.
5
6. The documents on record would further indicate that the Writ Petitioner
submitted a Representation on 08.01.2021 requesting the Respondent No.3 to
retain the Writ Petitioner in the same post and at the same place (Ex.P.9). The
material on record would further indicate that without considering the request
made by the Writ Petitioner dated 08.01.2021, the Superintending Engineer
(Respondent No.2) had issued the impugned Proceeding dated 23.01.2021
directing the Writ Petitioner to work at Panchayat Raj, PIU Sub-Division,
Vijayawada, on other duty, until further Orders and further directed the Writ
Petitioner to report before the Deputy Executive Engineer (P.R), PIU Sub-
Division, Vijayawada, immediately.
7. During the course of hearing, Petitioner-in-person has also submitted
that the Writ Petitioner has not been paid salary from January, 2021 up to
08.04.2021 and he sought indulgence of this Court for payment of salary as
well. For this purpose, he has taken this Court through the Election Duty
Certificate issued by the Assistant District Election Authority dated 04.02.2021
(Ex.P.17). He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Proceeding
issued by the District Election Authority dated 06.03.2021 directing the Writ
Petitioner to attend for training on 08.03.2021 (1st training) and 12.03.2021
(2nd training). It is indicated that the counting of votes will be taken up from
14.03.2021 onwards and he has also drawn the attention of this Court to
report for counting of votes at 06:00 A.M on 14.03.2021. The Election Duty
Certificate would indicate that the Writ Petitioner had reported to Election duty
as Stage-I Election Officer, Proddutur, Davluru & Chalivendrapalem Gram
Panchayats of Kankipadu Mandal and performed his election duty until
finalization of Stage-I process i.e., on 04.02.2021.
Counter Affidavit of Respondent Nos.1 to 5:-
8. The Executive Engineer, PRI Division, P.R Department (Respondent
No.1) has filed Counter Affidavit on behalf of himself and on behalf of the other
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 along with material documents. It is submitted by the
6Respondent No.1 that about three Complaints were received from the
Contractors dated 02.07.2020 alleging that the Writ Petitioner is not
processing the final bill pertaining to works done under MPLADS Grant in
Kakulapadu Village of Bapulapadu Mandal and also with regard to MGNREGS
works in Kanumolu and Perikeedu Villages of Bapulapadu Mandal and also
similar inaction with regard to Medicharla Village in Bapulapadu Mandal. It is
stated by Respondent No.1 that the Writ Petitioner is causing much
inconvenience to the public and the Contractors in running the day to day
administrative works, not only on account of the inaction but also on account
of arrogance and defiant attitude exhibited by the Writ Petitioner herein.
9. It is also stated in the Counter Affidavit that the Writ Petitioner has not
been attending to duty regularly; that the Respondent No.1 has issued a
Memo on 26.09.2020 stating that the Writ Petitioner has not attended the
Office from 18.09.2020 up to 22.09.2020 in an unauthorized manner and that
he had later signed in the Attendance Register even for the dates of his
absence without permission from the Executive Engineer. It is further stated
that the Respondent No.1 directed the Writ Petitioner to submit an explanation;
and, that on 28.09.2020, the Executive Engineer addressed a Letter to the
Superintending Engineer about the non-performance of the departmental-work
on the part of the Writ Petitioner and the inconvenience that is being caused to
the general public and the Contractors due to the non-performance. The
Respondent No.1 has further submitted that another Memo was issued on
29.09.2020 stating that the Writ Petitioner was again unauthorizedly absent on
28.09.2020 without proper permission or intimation and therefore, the Writ
Petitioner was asked to submit his explanation.
10. It is further submitted by Respondent No.1 that the Superintending
Engineer, P.R Circle (Respondent No.2) had addressed a Letter to the
Engineer-in-Chief (Respondent No.3) dated 08.10.2020, bringing it to the
knowledge of the Engineer-in-Chief (Respondent No.3) about the conduct of
the Writ Petitioner. The Executive Engineer (Respondent No.1) has also
7
issued another Memo dated 26.10.2020 to the Writ Petitioner stating that the
Writ Petitioner had attended to duties in Durga Temple, Vijayawada, with effect
from 17.10.2020 without getting prior relieving Orders from the Executive
Engineer.
11. Along with the Counter Affidavit, the Respondent No.1 has also filed a
Letter addressed by the Writ Petitioner to the Executive Engineer dated
23.12.2020 only to project the high-handed, arrogant and abusive behavior of
the Writ Petitioner towards a lady-officer. It is further submitted that the
Department, being unable to tolerate the unacceptable behavior of the Writ
Petitioner, the Executive Engineer (Respondent No.1) had addressed a Letter
to the Superintending Engineer (Respondent No.2) on 31.12.2020. The
Superintending Engineer had issued the Proceeding dated 23.01.2021 stating
that in view of the instructions received from Engineer-in-Chief (Respondent
No.3) dated 01.01.2021 and also Vigilance Memo received on 19.01.2021, the
Writ Petitioner is ordered to work at P.R, P.I.U Sub-Division, Vijayawada, on
other duty basis until further Orders and thereby, directing the Writ Petitioner
to report before the Deputy Executive Engineer, P.R, P.I.U, Sub-Division,
Vijayawada, immediately vide Proceeding dated 23.01.2021. There is a further
direction that the pay and allowance of the Writ Petitioner shall be claimed at
the original place i.e., from the Office of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division,
Vijayawada, as usual, after receipt of Attendance Certificate. It is further
submitted that even though the Writ Petitioner was directed to report duty
immediately vide Proceedings dated 23.01.2021, the Writ Petitioner has
reported to duty only on 08.04.2021. It is the claim of the Respondents that
the Writ Petitioner has not reported to duties until 08.04.2021.
Submissions of Sri Y.B. Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Services-IV:-
12. It is submitted by Sri Y.B. Ramesh, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Services-IV that the nature of the conduct of the Writ Petitioner
8would indicate that he is unsuitable for holding a post in the Government
Service where the Government Servants are required to perform public
functions. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn the attention of
this Court to a Letter addressed by the Writ Petitioner on 23.12.2020 to the
Executive Engineer (photocopy of the original handwritten Letter of the Writ
Petitioner is filed along with the Counter Affidavit). Learned Assistant
Government Pleader has taken this Court through the contents of the said
Letter where the Writ Petitioner has made certain allegations against the
Personal Assistant (P.A) to the Executive Engineer with abusive language to
the effect that she is “eating food (or) anything from the bathroom?” for
addressing the Writ Petitioner in singular manner. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader has also submitted that the Writ Petitioner has
deliberately suppressed various events that have transpired from 02.07.2020
up to 19.01.2021. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the
contents of the Proceedings of various Authorities dated 02.07.2020, the
Complaints of the Contractors and the other Proceedings that transpired
between the Authorities dated 26.09.2020, 28.09.2020, 29.09.2020,
08.10.2020, 26.10.2020, 23.12.2020, 31.12.2020, 01.01.2021 and 19.01.2021.
He would submit that these are substantive Proceedings which took place
between the Authorities and also against the Writ Petitioner and are therefore,
material facts and documents. He would submit that these material facts and
documents have been deliberately suppressed by the Writ Petitioner thereby,
giving a picture to this Hon’ble Court that the Writ Petitioner is being unduly
harassed by the Superior Authorities. He would submit that there are several
issues pending against the Writ Petitioner in terms of not performing his duties
properly thereby, rendering himself to be a deadwood in the Department and
also his acts of arrogance, defiance, unauthorized absence from duties and
also use of abusive language even against the women staff including P.A to
the Executive Engineer and the issues touching upon integrity in performing
his duties.
9
13. Vide Order dated 16.11.2023, this Court had directed the Respondent
No.5 namely the Principal Secretary to Government to produce the Original
Record pertaining to the Writ Petitioner before the Court with a further
direction to depute a responsible Officer who is capable to answer the queries
of this Court. One Sri A. Venkateswara Rao, who is working as Executive
Engineer, is present before the Court in compliance with the Order of this
Court dated 16.11.2023.
Issue:-
14. Having considered the submissions of the Writ Petitioner and the
Respondent Nos.1 to 5, the issue that falls for consideration is “whether the
Petitioner is entitled for the relief that is asked for”?
Analysis:-
15. This Court has perused all the Proceedings which have been referred to
hereinabove. Insofar as the main relief that is sought by the Writ Petitioner is
concerned, he had assailed the Proceeding of Respondent No.2 dated
23.01.2021 (Ex.P.11) wherein, the Writ Petitioner was directed to report before
the Deputy Executive Engineer forthwith and that the Deputy Executive
Engineer was instructed to admit the Assistant Executive Engineer
immediately and report compliance.
16. Before this Court proceeds to deal with the facts of this case, at the very
outset, this Court would feel it appropriate to refer to the most cardinal
principles, which are required to be followed by every public servant, without
deviation, which are as under:
i. Efficiency in administration;
ii. Esprit de corps; and,
iii. Integrity.
17. The above three features are not just essential but are rather
indispensable for every public servant for the purpose of maintaining efficiency
10
in the administration and this can be achieved only by adhering to the team
spirit (esprit de corps) and integrity in conduct as public servants. Absence of
anyone of these elements would derail the organized and organic functioning
of the Government Departments which are established for catering to the
needs of the public. In a democracy, the Government works for the people, of
the people and by the people. If a Government Servant is lacking anyone of
these cardinal features, the ultimate causality would be the public cause.
18. After having noted the essential features that are required to be
possessed by a public servant, this Court would notice that the facts in the
present case would indicate that the Writ Petitioner’s conduct has chequered
history. Although the allegations, which are raised against the Writ Petitioner
by way of Memos and Reports, are still in the investigation/inquiry stage,
suffice it to notice that with regard to one Proceeding dated 19.01.2021
(Ex.P.7), the Writ Petitioner was warned not to repeat making of complaints
against the Superior Authorities in the future and also to be careful in the
future. De horse this Proceeding, a new set of allegations came to light
against the Writ Petitioner, where the Contractors, who have performed works
under the MPLADS Grant as well as under the MGNREGS scheme were
allegedly harassed by the Writ Petitioner in the form of deliberate inaction with
a further demand for bribes. These Complaints have been received by the
Executive Engineer (Respondent No.1) and the same had been duly reported
to the Superintending Engineer (Respondent No.2) as well.
19. While these are under consideration, it transpires from record that the
Writ Petitioner has resorted to acts of unwarranted behavior and writing letters
in a kind of tone and tenor, which cannot be accepted by the civilized world.
Such conduct, if proved against the Writ Petitioner, would undoubtedly render
him unbecoming of a public servant. This Court has also noticed, as it is a
matter of record, that the Writ Petitioner had addressed a Letter to the
Executive Engineer about the conduct of his Personal Secretary, who is a
woman, had gone to the extent of saying that ‘she is eating food or anything
11
from the bathroom? All these are under investigation and consideration before
the Superior Authorities, but at the outset, without commenting anything about
the conduct of the Writ Petitioner, even assuming that one percent of these
allegations were proved to be true, then for the perpetration of such conduct
on the part of the Writ Petitioner, he is not entitled to be continued in the
service any more.
20. The above issues have become relevant in the present case because of
the fact that the harmony, coordination and cooperation which are
indispensable features in public service are now ruffled in this case to some
extent. How the belligerent conduct of one person as is reflected from the
Proceedings of Respondent No.1 dated 31.12.2020 and the letter written by
the Writ Petitioner dated 23.12.2020 (filed along with the Counter Affidavit) to
the Respondent No.1 can throw the entire Department into a tailspin would
emerge from the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Apex Court has time
and again reiterated the indispensability of brotherhood, coordination and
cooperation that lead to harmonious relationship between the Superiors and
the Subordinates in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C.
Mazdoor Congress and Ors. : 1991 Supp(1) SCC 600. Para 317 of the said
Judgment is usefully extracted hereunder:
“Need for harmony between social interest and
individual right
317. Undoubtedly efficiency of the
administration and the discipline among the
employees is very vital to the successful functioning
of an institution or maximum production of goods or
proper maintenance of the services. Discipline in that
regard among the employees is its essential facet and
has to be maintained. The society is vitally interested
in the due discharge of the duties by the government
employees or employees of corporate bodies or
statutory authorities or instrumentalities under Article
12 of the Constitution. As held in Tulsiram Patel case
[(1985) 3 SCC 398, 424-25 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 672 : 1985
Supp 2 SCR 131, 166] the public are vitally interested
in the efficiency and integrity of the public service. The
government or corporate employees are, after all, paid
12from the public exchequer to which everyone
contributes either by way of direct or indirect taxes.
The employees are charged with public duty and they
should perform their public duties with deep sense of
responsibility. The collective responsibility of all the
officers from topmost to the lowest maximises the
efficient public administration. They must, therefore,
be held to have individual as well as collective
responsibility in discharge of their duties faithfully,
honestly with full dedication and utmost devotion to
duty for the progress of the country. Equally the
employees must also have a feeling that they have security
of tenure. They should also have an involvement on their
part in the orgnisation or institution, corporation etc. They
need assurance of service and they need protection. The
public interest and the public good demand that those who
discharge their duties honestly, efficiently and with a sense
of devotion and dedication to duty should receive adequate
protection and security of tenure. Equally inefficient,
dishonest and corrupt or who became security risk
should be weeded out so that successful functioning
of the industry or manufacture of the goods or
rendering of services would be available at the
maximum level to the society and society thereby
receives optimum benefit from the public money
expended on them as salary and other perks.
Therefore, when a situation envisaged under statute or
statutory rule or regulation or instructions having
statutory force to remove or dismiss an employee the
question arises whether they need at least minimum
protection of fair play in action.”
21. In Indian Railways Construction Company Limited Vs. Ajay Kumar :
(2003) 4 SCC 579, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, although had dealt with the
case relating to indiscipline of a Member of the Employees Union, had laid
down certain principles with regard to the conduct of an Employee in
Government Service. In this context, paras 27 to 29 of the said Judgment are
usefully extracted hereunder:
“27. We find substance in the plea of learned
counsel for the appellant that an employee even if he
claims to be a member of the employees’ union has to act
with a sense of discipline and decorum. Presentation of
demands relating to employees cannot be exhibited by
muscle power. It must be borne in mind that every
employee is a part of a functioning system, which may
13collapse if its functioning is affected improperly. For smooth
functioning, every employer depends upon a disciplined
employees’ force. In the name of presenting demands they
cannot hold the employer to ransom. At the same time the
employer has a duty to look into and as far as practicable,
obviate the genuine grievances of the employees. The
working atmosphere should be cordial, as that would be in
the best interest of the establishment. Unless an
atmosphere of cordiality exists there is likelihood of
inefficient working and that would not be in the interest of
the establishment and would be rather destructive of
common interest of both employer and employees.
28. If an act or omission of an employee reflects
upon his character, reputation, integrity or devotion to duty
or is an unbecoming act, certainly the employer can take
action against him. In this context, reference may be made
to the following observations of Lopes, C.J. in Pearce v.
Foster [(1886) 17 QBD 536 : (1886-90) All ER Rep Ext
1752 : 55 LJQB 306 : 54 LT 664 (CA)] (QBD p. 542):
“If a servant conducts himself in a way
inconsistent with the faithful discharge of his duty
in the service, it is misconduct which justifies
immediate dismissal. That misconduct, according
to my view, need not be misconduct in the
carrying on of the service of the business. It is
sufficient if it is conduct which is prejudicial or is
likely to be prejudicial to the interests or to the
reputation of the master, and the master will be
justified, not only if he discovers it at the time, but
also if he discovers it afterwards, in dismissing
that servant.”
This view was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Union of India v. K.K. Dhawan [(1993) 2 SCC 56 :
1993 SCC (L&S) 325 : (1993) 24 ATC 1 : AIR 1993 SC
1478] .
29. Here, the alleged acts have not been
disbelieved by the High Court. They are prima facie acts of
misconduct. Therefore, the employer can legitimately raise
a plea of losing confidence in the employee, warranting his
non-continuance in the employment. The time-gap is
another significant factor.”
22. In M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma : (2005) 3
SCC 401, the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the situation where the employee
of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board was found guilty of hitting and
injuring his Superior Officer at work place. In para 9 of the said Judgment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
14
“9. In the case on hand, the employee has been
found guilty of hitting and injuring his superior officer at the
workplace, obviously in the presence of other employees.
This clearly amounted to breach of discipline in the
organisation. Discipline at the workplace in an organisation
like the employer herein, is the sine qua non for the
efficient working of the organisation. When an employee
breaches such discipline and the employer terminates his
services, it is not open to a Labour Court or an Industrial
Tribunal to take the view that the punishment awarded is
shockingly disproportionate to the charge proved. We have
already referred to the views of this Court. To quote Jack
Chan, ‘discipline is a form of civilly responsible behaviour
which helps maintain social order and contributes to the
preservation, if not advancement, of collective interests of
society at large’.Obviously this idea is more relevant in
considering the working of an organisation like the
employer herein or an industrial undertaking. Obedience to
authority in a workplace is not slavery. It is not violative of
one’s natural rights. It is essential for the prosperity of the
organisation as well as that of its employees. When in such
a situation, a punishment of termination is awarded for
hitting and injuring a superior officer supervising the work
of the employee, with no extenuating circumstance
established, it cannot be said to be not justified. It cannot
certainly be termed unduly harsh or disproportionate. The
Labour Court and the High Court in this case totally
misdirected themselves while exercising their jurisdiction.
The Industrial Court made the correct approach and came
to the right conclusion.”
23. In another case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the
replying effect of belligerence of the employee and the consequences within
the Department on account of this misconduct. In Chennai Metropolitan
Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Ors. Vs. T.T. Murali Babu : (2014)
4 SCC 108, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 33 of the said Judgment
as under:
“33. Another aspect needs to be noted. The
respondent was a Junior Engineer. Regard being had to
his official position, it was expected of him to maintain
discipline, act with responsibility, perform his duty with
sincerity and serve the institution with honesty. This kind
of conduct cannot be countenanced as it creates a
concavity in the work culture and ushers in indiscipline in
an organisation. In this context, we may fruitfully quote a
15passage from Govt. of India v. George Philip [(2006) 13
SCC 1 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 365] : (SCC p. 14, para 18)
“18. … In a case involving overstay of leave
and absence from duty, granting six months’
time to join duty amounts to not only giving
premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive
of the work culture in the organisation. Article
51-A(j) of the Constitution lays down that it
shall be the duty of every citizen to strive
towards excellence in all spheres of individual
and collective activity so that the nation
constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour
and achievement. This cannot be achieved
unless the employees maintain discipline and
devotion to duty. Courts should not pass such
orders which instead of achieving the
underlying spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the
Constitution have the tendency to negate or
destroy the same.”
We respectfully reiterate the said feeling and restate with
the hope that the employees in any organisation should
adhere to discipline for not only achieving personal
excellence but for collective good of an organisation.
When we say this, we may not be understood to have
stated that the employers should be harsh to impose
grave punishment on any misconduct. An amiable
atmosphere in an organisation develops the work culture
and the employer and the employees are expected to
remember the same as a precious value for systemic
development.”
24. Having considered the settled law, this Court is of the opinion that busy
bodies who continue to unleash a volley of unsubstantiated allegations against
the Superiors is a conduct which is regulated by Sub Rule 3 of Rule 3 and Sub
Rule 3 of Rule 24 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It would
then be a requirement on the part of the Official Respondents to initiate
appropriate enquiry to verify the veracity of the allegations touching upon the
conduct of the Writ Petitioner, as projected by the Official Respondents and
thereby, a suitable action may be initiated. Admittedly, the Complaint dated
02.07.2020 against the Writ Petitioner and the Proceedings transpired
between the Authorities dated 26.09.2020, 28.09.2020, 29.09.2020,
08.10.2020, 26.10.2020, 23.12.2020, 31.12.2020, 01.01.2021 and
19.01.2021which are material facts, have been suppressed by the Writ
16
Petitioner and they were brought to light only through the material documents
filed by the Official Respondents. Courts cannot permit busy bodies who are
serving as public servants to take undue advantage from minor procedural
lapses on the part of the Executive. Court shall not come to the rescue of
such public servants whose conduct affects the public interest. The acts of
belligerence are an anti-thesis in governmental service/public service. If acts
of belligerence are perpetrated by the public servants, such acts would
damage/destroy the entire fabric in the concerned Department besides being
an example which the other likeminded or prospective belligerent staff might
like to follow and emulate, which will eventually be detrimental to the ‘public
cause’. There are enough laws on the statute book prescribing parameters to
weed-out deadwood and people with doubtful integrity inasmuch as the
arrogance and characteristic of ego and pride may have an adverse impact on
the whole Department. For the public servant, public duty is paramount
whereas, if such public servants are giving step-motherly treatment to the very
public service cannot be tolerated. Courts must be vigilant to see to it that
public servants who act as busy bodies would not abuse the process of Court
by pointing out few procedural lapses for securing the relief while the conduct
of such public servant is under scrutiny by the Authorities.
25. In this background, it must be clearly stated at the very outset, this
Court is neither exonerating the alleged conduct of the Writ Petitioner nor is it
endorsing the ‘alleged conduct of highhandedness and misbehaviour’ on the
part of the Respondents herein. It is noticed that the Writ Petitioner had
already undergone one Disciplinary Proceeding in terms of a Charge Memo
issued on 15.11.2019 and he was admonished/warned not to repeat such
things in the future and to be more careful in the future vide Proceeding dated
19.01.2021. Regarding the other Proceeding relating to the Complaints
received by the Executive Engineer on 02.07.2020 by various Contractors of
MPLADS Grant and MGNREGS Scheme, the Executive Engineer had already
informed the Superintending Engineer vide Proceeding dated 28.09.2020. It
also transpires from record that two other Memos have been issued on
17
26.09.2020 and 26.10.2020 which have to be logically taken forward. At this
stage, this Court would not like to comment about the sufficiency or otherwise
of the evidence to implicate the Writ Petitioner inasmuch as the same is the
domain of the Executive to take a call on these Proceedings. Suffice it to say
that there is sufficient material on record that would indicate that the Writ
Petitioner does not deserve any indulgence. The impugned Proceeding dated
31.12.2020 (Ex.P.6) is sufficient to indicate that the conduct, as projected in
the said Proceeding, is required to be further inquired into.
26. With the kind of background, as noted hereinabove, this Court is of the
opinion that there is no illegality in the Surrender Proceedings dated
23.01.2021 (Ex.P.11). Before parting with this case, this Court makes it clear
that this Court has not rendered any adverse finding insofar as the allegations
which are made against the Writ Petitioner are concerned since the same are
under consideration before the authorities. Therefore, apart from the general
opinion expressed by this Court, any specific comment made shall not be
treated as a finding since the same has not yet been inquired into by the
Executive Authorities.
27. With the above observations, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ
Petition is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
28. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
_________________________________
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Dt: 05.06.2025
Vns
18
50
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.23700 of 2021
Dt: 05.06.2025
Vns