Mohammad Sanaullah Khan vs. The State Of Telangana

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents'

Brief facts of the case are as follows :- The petitioner joined the 2"d respondent organization on 2l.oT.TgSTasacourtclerk,andsincethenhehasbeendischarging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors without any complaint. Pursuant to the strike call notice given by the General Secretary of Telangana State Wakf Board Employees Welfare Association for non-payment of salaries for the month of April, 2015' -he was constrained to participate in a One-day strike on 04'05'2015' which is the legitimate right of employees for the works extracted from them.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no irregularity or illegality on the part of the petitioner in participating in the strike, along with other employees ventilating their grievance. The 2"a respondent placed the petitioner and three ot-her employees under suspension vide proceedings dated 05.05.2015 for participating in the strike.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that all the suspended employees have approached this Court by way of filing W.P.Nos.15750, 15621 and 26970 of 2015. While so, vide interim order dated 05.06.2015, this Court suspended the proceedings impugned in W.P.Nos. 15750 of 20 15 and 15621 of 2015. Further, vide interim order dated 25.08.2015 in W.P.No.2697O of 2015, which is frled by the petitioner herein, this Court passed the '. interim order. Pursuant to the above said interim orders passed by this Court, immediately the petitioners in the other two writ petitions were reinstated into service. The petitioner was not immediately reinstated into service. 6. l,earned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the 2",t respondent has conducted a departmental enquiry, and a show-cause notice was issued by framing the following charges :- "(a). Ttnt he has instead of mointaining Lana and order in the premises of the O/o of the APSWB, Haj House, Nampallg, fE has 3 o supported the pen doutn stike itLegallg and created a lau and order problem and- instigated other emplogees of the Board to participate in pen down strtke. Thus he has uioloted Rule (4) of A.P. Ciuil Se:ices (Conduct Rules) 1964. As sucll he has uiolated Rule (4) of A.P. Ciuil Seruices (conduct) Rules 1964. (fl. fhat he hns prouoked other employees of the State Waqk Board to go on pen d-oun stike and prouocation caused disruption of power supplA of the enttre Haj House Building' (c). Ttnt his unlau-tful behauiour and disturbance in the office is obuiouslg detrimentol to the interest of maintenonce of discipline in Gout' offices and it omounts to graue misconduct on his part, which amounts to uiolation of Rule-3 of A.P. @). ffd he has not or"lg u.,rongfullg restrained the aboue Officer Janab Mohd Jalatuddin Akbar, I.F.S, Director of Telangano State Minoities Welfare Department in toking ouer Charge but also used ciminol force to the pubtic oJftcer in exeattion of his dutg and roised slogans. As such the delinqtent's action amounts to dereliction of dutg and uiolation of prouision of Rule-3 Ciuil Seruices (Conduct) R Les, 1964' @). Tnt the detirquent along tttith others haue demonstrated in front of the Haj House of 5-5 15 and gaue slogan agdinst the aboue officer ond such slogan utere exceed"ed their pennissiue parameters. As such tLLe delinquent hos uiolated the Rule 5 of AP Ciuil Seruices (Con'duct) Rules 1964."

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has submitted his explanation, not being satisfied with the explanation, the 2"d respondent has appointed an Enquiry Officer. After conducting an elaborate enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report holding that charge Nos.1 and 5 are proved and, accordingly, the 2"d respondent has issued a show-cause notice dated 06.03.2017 stating that lt-dearge Nos.l and 5 are held proved,

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pending the hrst enquiry in File No.a9/ADB/2013 Z-11, dated 13.O7.2016, the petitioner was once again placed under suspension on the ground that he was engaged in activities prejudicial to the interest of the security of the Wald Board and that the 2'a respondent intended to initiate disciplinary proceedings for causing damage to the Waqf Institution in Thimmapur, Khalapur Mandal, with a malahde intention to take control over the administration of Masjid-E- Mohammadia by changing the location of Idgah from Sy.Nos.181 to 182 are contrary to Waqf records and the Survey Comrhission Report' The petitioner has submitted his explalation to the charge memo, and the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report stating that he was not responsible in any manner and recommended for survey by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Abilabad District. The 2nd respondent has issued the impugned proceedings dated 13.06.2018 contrary to the show-cause notice dated 06.03'2017. The second enquiry is concluded as the enquiry officer has submitted his enquiry report and recommended for survey by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Adilabad District. Hence, without II

The counter further states as follows :- "Tlrc d.eputed staff of Telangana State Waqf Board submitted tle report on 1 1.O8.2O14 ond afier going through the report of deputed staff, it is obserued that the report is not up to the mark for the purpose they haue been deputed and it is the .one sided report submitted to fauour one partA petition Le. Si Hafeez Khan of Khnnapur and this surueg done through Mandal Suruegor and he prepared. the sketch wherein he has reported completelg reuersed and not tattied with Waqf Reard Le. First surueg commission report dated 02.06.1996 and A.P. Gozette No. 1-A, dated 04.01.1990 and also reuenue record like RSR extract.

In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Whirlpoot Corporation Vs, Registrar of Trode Marks' Mumbai and othersl, wherein the Honble Apex Court held as follows :- o16. Rosltid Ahmed u- Municipol Boord, Kairana [195O SCC 221 : AIR 1950 SC 163 : 195O SCR 5661 toid dotun that eistence of an adequate legal remedg tuas o foctor to be taken into considerotion in the matter of granting urits' Thb was follotued bg onother Rashid case' namelg, K.S. Rashid & Son u' Income Tox Inuestigation Commission IAIR 1954 SC 207 : (195fl 25 IrR 167] tuhich reiterated the aboue proposition ond held that uth'ere alternatiue remedy exi'sted' it ruould be a sound exerci,se of discretion to refuse to interkre in a petition under Article 226' This proposition tlcis, Lloueuer, qtalified bg the significant utords' (' 1(1998) 8 supreme court cases 1

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RADHA I(RISIIAMIVDUS?RIES Vs' STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHER$2, wherein the Honble Apex Court held as follows :- -15. White drbmissing the wit petition, the High Court held [Radha Krishan Industies u. State of H.P., 2021 SCC Online HP 4566] that it lDos undisputed that the third respondent and the Diuisional Commissioner, u.tho hr"s been appointed as Commissioner (Appeals) under the GST Act, are con stituted under the HPGSI Act, ond therefore, it is assumed. that there is no iltegat or irregular exercise of juri iction. fhe High Court further obserued that euen if tlrcre is some dekct in the procedure fottou-ted duing tte heaing of the case, it does not folloru tllat the authoitg acted uithout iui tction, and thaugh ihe order mag be irregular or defectiue, tt cannot be a nultitg so long it has been passed bg the competent authoritg.' 14. t earned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in @DRE,I SARA LEE LIMITED Vs- EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER-CUM-ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND OTHDRS3, wherein the Honble Apex Court held as follows :- G4. Before ansuteing the questions, we feet the urge to saA a fetu words on the exercise of u.trit pou.ters confened bg Article 226 of the Constitution hauing come across certain orders passed by the high courts holding tuit petitions as "not maintainable" merely because the '1zO2t1 6 supreme court cases 771. 3 2023 SCC Online SC 95 (-

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that no doubt, as per Section 35 of the A.P.Waqf Board Regulations, 1963, there is a provision of preferring an appeal and the petitioner carl prefer an appeal. But, in view of the lapse of several yea-rs, as the writ petition is hled in the year 2018 and as the petitioner is now aged about 55 years, it is not just and proper to direct the petitioner to prefer a-n appeal. Further, in GODR&I SARA LEE's case ( supra), the Honble Apex Court held that writ petitions cannot be held as "not maintainable' merely because the parties have not perused the alternative remedy provided by the relevant statutes, without examining as to whether a proper case has been made out. Once the disciplinary proceedings are pending before the authorities concemed arrd an interim order was also passed for reinstatement, without concluding the said disciplinary proceedings, issuing a second show-

In the instant case, with show-cause notice, it is not Department but rather a strike which is paft alrd parcel of the virtue of the said legal right, the regard to the issuance of the frrst arl individual action against the call notice given by the Association, activities of employees union and by petitioner has participated in the one day strike. Further, had the petitioner individually created any nuisance or committed any illegal action, then the Department would have been justified in taking serious action against him. However, it was the collective decision of the employees union to participate in the strike for grant of their legitimate rights. Therefore, the Department cannot take it as an individual action of the petitioner and the respondents; having reinstated the other suspended employees pursuant to the orders of this Court, denying the petitioner's case for reinstatement is nothing but the violation of the principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs' Pending miscellaaeous applications, if any, shall stand closed . MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// To, J SECTI N OFFICER

Two CD BN GJ na- touTI Cdpres