Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary v. K. Ajay Kumar

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Mar 2023WP/38661/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Administrative Tribunal order that had set aside a government dismissal. The Court held the dismissal was illegal due to lack of evidence and supported the Tribunal's decision to order retirement benefits.

What did the court decide?

Interim order vacated; petitioner's writ petition dismissed; respondent entitled to retirement benefits.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SYAMSUNDER

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 38661 of 2012

¶5

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Justice M. Ganga Rao)

¶6

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Vigilance-VII) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, filed this Writ Petition to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for records, relating to the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, passed in O.A. No. 1409 of 2007 dated 30.08.2012 and to quash the same. The tribunal passed the impugned order dated 30.08.2012 passed in O.A.No.1409 of 2007 wherein and whereby set aside the G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 17.02.2006, issued by the petitioner, dismissing the 1^st respondent from service.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the 1^st respondent while he was working as Junior Assistant, Office of the Sub-Collector, Vijayawada, Krishna District, the ACB officials on the complaint given by one Banavatu Sriramulu on 28.09.2002 stating that the petitioner had demanded an amount of Rs.2000/- from him for processing the pending file relating to purchase of the Ac.9.04 cents of Endowment lands for the purpose of issuing house sites to the Tribals of the

¶8

¶9

Penamaluru Village. Thereafter and thereby trap was laid against him on 30.09.2002, by the ACB officials of Vijayawada and tainted amount was recovered from his possession. On the report of the ACB officials, he was under suspension on 01.10.2002.

¶10

The Government vide proceedings dated 14.08.2003, placed the petitioner on his defence before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the Tribunal framed a charge against him which reads thus:

¶11

“That you, while working as Junior Assistant, O/o. Sub-Collector, Vijayawada. Krishna District, actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of your official position demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant Sri B.Sreeramulu on 30.09.2002 at the Main Gate of the Museum near Sub-Collector's Office, Vijayawada, for processing the pending file relating to purchase of 9.40 Ac. Of Endowments land for the purpose of issuing house sites to the Tribals of the Penamaluru Village. Thereby, you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989 framed under the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act. 1960 as amended in 1993.”

¶12

He submitted his explanation denying the allegations leveled against him, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Authority, conducted enquiry submitted enquiry report holding that the charge against the

¶13

¶14

1^st respondent was proved. The petitioner, while enclosing a copy of the report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, directed the 1^st respondent to submit his explanation on the report of 3^rd Member of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and why suitable punishment under Rule 9 of APCs (CC & A) Rules, 1991 should not be imposed against him vide Memo dated 28.04.2005. The applicant submitted explanation on 08.07.2005, denying allegations stating that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, on erroneous appreciation of fact and law, only based on the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of Pw.1 recorded by the concerned Magistrate, found him guilty of the charge and the petitioner without considering his explanation, in its proper perspective issued the G.O.Ms.NO.194, dated 17.02.2006, imposing punishment of dismissal from service against the 1^st respondent. Being aggrieved by the same the 1^st respondent approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1409 of 2007, to set aside the dismissal order passed vide G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 17.02.2006. The Tribunal after elaborate consideration of the facts and law and evidence on record set aside the G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 17.02.2006 and the 1^st respondent is entitled for the retirement benefits and consequential benefits such as fixation of his pay and pension etc., as the 1^st respondent retired during the pendency of the O.A.No.1409 of 2007 from the service in the year, 2009. The entire exercise is to be

¶15

¶16

completed by the respondents within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Against which, the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition. This Court while ordering Rule nisi , call for records on 24.03.2015, in W.P.M.P. No.49042 of 2012, suspended the order passed in O.A.No.1409 of 2017.

¶17

The Administrative Tribunal in support of its findings has considered the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.N.Mukherjee vs. Union of India¹ and this Court’s Judgment in the

¶18

case of Mir Sabir Ali vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad² . The Disciplinary authority has to give reasons for imposing punishment of dismissal from service.

¶19

The learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Tribunal passed impugned order reassessing the evidence before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and came to a different conclusion and held that the charge against the 1^st respondent was not proved based on any legally admissible evidence, which is impermissible in law. The Tribunal ought to have considered the evidence of Pw.1 filing a complaint by ACB officials in his statement before the Magistrate, under 164 Cr.P.C. that the delinquent employee/1^st respondent, demanded the

¶20

1 AIR 1990 SC 1984

¶21

2 1999 (4) ALT 32

¶22

¶23

amount of Rs.2000/- for doing favour in disposal of the pending file pertaining to the house sites, as the Pw.1 has become hostile before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and changed his version. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings after considering the evidence of Pw.I and Pw.II held that the charge against the petitioner is proved. The 1^st petitioner based on the enquiry report of the 3^rd Member of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, had issued show cause notice to the 1^st respondent herein and considering his explanation, he was dismissed from service. The same could not be said to be without any valid reasons. The Administrative Tribunal instead of setting aside the dismissal order ought to have been remanded the matter for reconsideration, instead of setting aside the G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 17.02.2006 and directing the 1^st respondent to settle the retirement benefits of the petitioner therein.

¶24

Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel appering for the 1^st respondent would submit that the prosecuting authority examined six witnesses and marked exhibit (Pw1 to Pw13) before the 3^rd Member of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, after completion of the enquiry, submitted a report on 21.12.2004 to the petitioner/Disciplinary authority, holding that the charge against the 1^st respondent/Employee was proved.

¶25

¶26

He further submits that the Writ Petitioner, while enclosing a copy of the enquiry report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, directed the 1^st respondent to submit his explanation on the enquiry report of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, wherein it was held that the charge against him was proved. Further, stated that the respondent herein, was asked why a suitable punishment under Rule 9 of APCs (CC & A) Rules, 1991, should not be imposed against him vide Memo dated 28.04.2005. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations that he has not demanded any amount for doing official favour to the de-facto complainant/Pw.1 by receiving Rs.2,000/-. He stated specifically that Rs.2,000/- was paid by the de-facto complainant towards repayment of hand loan taken by the complainant earlier. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, without there being any legally admissible evidence before it, only based on the 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1, recorded by the concerned Magistrate found guilty. Based on the said enquiry report, the petitioner, without properly considering the explanation submitted by the 1^st respondent and without any reasons passed the G.O.Ms.No.194, dated 17.02.2006, dismissing the petitioner from service which is illegal, contrary to the Rule 20 of APCs (CC & A) Rules, 1991. He made his submissions to sustain the order passed by the petitioner. Further submits that the Tribunal, rightly held that the

¶27

¶28

petitioner has passed the dismissal order vide G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 17.02.2006, without giving any sufficient reasons for dismissing the 1^st respondent/Employee.

¶29

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the counsel, perused the record. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings has conducted enquiry with regard to the charge against the respondent. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, failed to see that the prosecution, having examined six witnesses, failed to prove the guilt of the 1^st respondent herein. Pw.1 deposed that the Charged Officer has not demanded any amount for doing official favour on 30.09.2002 and that he paid an amount of Rs.2,000/- to the charged officer towards repayment of hand loan taken from him earlier. Even the Pw.2, the Deputy Tahsildar working in the office of the Collector, Vijayawada stated that on 28.09.2002 the file regarding the issue of pattas to the beneficiaries in the Penamaluru Village was not pending in the Sub Collector, Office, Vijayawada and the Charged Officer is not the concerned person and the tainted amount, at the time of post trap proceedings, the Charged Officer replied that Pw.1 gives the amount as he made repayment of the hand loan taken by Pw.1 by him earlier and Pw.8 also states that the Charged Officer is not competent person to issue house site pattas to the petitioner and others. No witnesses supported the charge

¶30

¶31

against the petitioner before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. However, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings based on statement of 164 Cr.P.C and statement of the Pw.1 recorded by the concerned Magistrate found him guilty of the charge. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, without any legally admissible evidence before it erroneously submitted enquiry report stating that the charge is proved against the Charged Officer. Even the Writ Petitioner/Disciplinary Authority, without properly considering the explanations submitted by the Charged Officer, 1^st respondent/Employee to a show cause notice, in its proper perspective held that the Charged Officer has committed misconduct and without application of mind only carried away by the letters of DG.ACB dated 03.06.2003 and Government Memo dated 14.08.2003 and Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings enquiry report on 21.12.2004 without any valid reasons dismissed the 1^st respondent from service. The Tribunal having considered rival contentions and evidence on record rightly held that the dismissal of the 1^st respondent/Employee from service by G.O.Ms.No.194 dated 17.02.2006, is contrary to the provisions of Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification and Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991. It is found that the Writ Petition is devoid by any merits. The impugned order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1409 of 2007, dated

¶32

¶33

13.08.2012, does not warrant interference of this Court by exercise the Certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34