Allowed

k.srinivasa rao v. the M.D.,Ap State Housing Corpn.Ltd and 4 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Aug 2024WP/27103/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by an Assistant Engineer challenging disciplinary proceedings and recovery orders. The Court set aside a stoppage of increment and recovery of Rs. 80,950/-, holding that the disciplinary authority disregarded the Enquiry Officer's conclusion that charges were not proved.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Impugned disciplinary proceedings and recovery proceedings set aside; No order as to costs.

k.srinivasa rao Vs the M.D.,Ap State… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

•M

¶6

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 27103 OF 2015

¶8

Between;

¶9

K.Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ; Assistant Engineer, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited., Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram^District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE M.D.,AP STATE HOUSING CORPN.LTD AND 4 OTHERS, Rep. by its Managing Director, D.No. 3-6-184, Urdu Gaily, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad29.

¶13

The District Collector-Cum-Chairman,, A.P State Housing Corporation Ltd. Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram.

¶14

The Project Director, A.P. Housing Corporation Limited,, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District.

¶15

The Special Officer, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Limited, Srikakulam District.

¶16

. 5. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,, Housing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, to declare the impugned proceedings No. 8086A/1A/ZM/2012, dt.08.06.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential recovery proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.A2/188/2013, dt.14.08.2015 as being illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015 (WPMP, NO: 35176 OF 20151

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned proceedings No.8086A/1A/ZM/2012, dt.08.06.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential recovery proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.A2 / 188 /2013, dt.14.08.2015, pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶21

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WVMP. NO: 1796 OF 2nifi)

¶22

Between:

¶23

THE M.D., AP STATE HOUSING CORPN LTD Reo. bv its Mananinn irector, D. No. 3-6-184, Urdu Gaily, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad -29.‘

¶24

^ District Collector-Cum-Chairman, A.P State Housing Corporation

¶25

Ltd., Vizianagaram District, Vizianagaram. Vizianagaram

¶26

dIsSL'' ''Corporation Limited,

¶27

The Special Officer, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Limited,

¶28

Srikakulam District.

¶29

...Petitioners/Respondent No.1 to 4

¶30

AND

¶31

K. Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Assistant Engineer, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited., Dattirajeru Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

¶32

...Respondent/Petitioner

¶33

State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶34

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim order 26.08.2015 in WPMP NO. 35176/2015 in WP. No. 27103/2015

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TADDI NAGESWARA RAO

¶36

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: SRI T SUDHAKAR REDDY

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: E V JAGANNADHA RAO (SC FOR AP STATE HOUSEING COOP LTD)

¶38

The Court made the following: Order

¶39

¶40

APHC010796602015

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶42

[3333]

¶43

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶44

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶45

PRESENT

¶46

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶47

WRIT PETITION NO: 27103/2015

Between;

K.Srinivasa Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

The A.P. State Housing Corpn. Ltd and 4 others

¶53

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶55

1.TADD1 NAGESWARA RAO

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶57

E V JAGANNADHA RAO (SC FOR AP STATE HOUSEING COOP^LTD)

¶58

The Court made the following;

¶59

¶60

ORDER;

¶61

to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution The present Writ Petition came of India seeking the following relief;-

¶62

Direction, more particularly one in the ...to issue an appropriate Writ. Order or nmrpedinas nature of writ of mandamus, to declare the impugned No.m6/V1NZM/20n. dated 08.06,20)5 i<’7e>Zne7nt in consequentialRc NOA2/188/2013.recoverydated proceedings14.08.2015 asissuedbeing illegal,by the^arbitraryand ^^against f tn aside the same the principles of natural justice and consequently set herein was appointed as 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner 12.02.1986. Work inspector in the respondent Corporation and joined duty on the post of Mandal In-charge Housing Thereafter, he was appointed to Mandal and worked there from 01.04.2008 to (MIC/TWI) and posted at S.Kota Assistant Engineer and posted at 30.09.2008. Later, he was promoted as Mandal In-charge Vizianagaram NK. While the petitioner was working as Mandal from 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008, he was Housing (MIC/TWI) at S.Kota under Indiramma Housing Scheme entrusted with the construction of houses at Veeranarayanam Village, S.Kota Mandal.

¶63

complaint from one 3, While so. the respondents, having received a , S.Kota Mandal stating .that the public K.Jagadish of Veeranarayanam Village and misappropriated the funds without servants colluded with each other under Indiramma Housing for beneficiaries constructing the houses said complaint to the respondent. Programme (Phase-11), forwarded the who, in turn, has enquired the matter and submitted his preliminary enquiry the said preliminary 21.06.2012 to the 1®^ respondent. Basing on report on

¶64

enquiry report, the respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and issued memorandum of articles of charges vide proceedings dated 23.01.2013 and directed him to submit his explanation within a period of ten days, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 06.04.2013. stating that the Enquiry Officer has not supplied the enquiry officers report, but. however without even affording time for the petitioner to submit explanation, the 1®’ respondent has appointed Sri.R.Appa Rao. Special Officer Housing. Vizianaga ram as an enquiry officer in the matter.

¶65

The 4'^ respondent, who i IS enquiry officer herein, has conducted enquiry and submitted his report and basing on the said report, the articles of charges were framed and issued charge sheet. The 4"' respondent, after duly examining the witnesses with regard to payments made to seven ineligible beneficiaries, have concluded that the charges leveled against the petitioner were not proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority even without considering the enquiry report, submitted by the 4'^ respondent, has passed the impugned proceedings dated 08.06.2015 i imposing minor punishment of stoppage of one annual grade i increment without cumulative effect, besides recovery of Rs.80.950/- with 12% interest per annum respectively. Thereafter, recovery proceedings dated 14.08.2015 were issued by the 3^" respondentThe Project Director, A.P. Housing Corporation Limited, Vizianagaram herein. Chaiienging the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶66

The respondents have filed a detailed counter stating that a copy of the preliminary enquiry report was enclosed to the Articles of Charges issued to

¶67

¶68

the petitioner. After giving reasonable and sufficient time to the petitioner for submission of his explanation, the Regular Enquiry was conducted by appointing Sri R.Appa Rao, Special Officer as an Enquiry Officer as per the ARCS (CC&A) Rules. It is further stated that the enquiry^{officerinhisfindings} stated that the payments released to the beneficiaries through online, were covered in old RPH scheme and recommended for recovery. These findings proves that the Charged Officer i.e. petitioner herein has^irregularly released the payments to the beneficiaries of Veeranarayanapuram Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District thus caused loss to Government^funds.Hence, punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment^{withoutcumulative} effect, besides recovery of Rs.80,950/-, were imposed against the petitioner herein as per ARCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991.

¶69

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the^{learnedcounsel} appearing for the respondents.

¶70

A perusal of the documents i.e. enquiry report filed by^{thepetitioner} dated 11.12.2013, discloses that the enquiry officer, after duly considering the technical opinion of the Dy.Executive Engineer (Housing),^{Kothavalasa,who} has opined that these nine houses have been constructed newly under Indiramma Rhase-ll Housing Programme, wherein it is^{statedthatinfact,RPH} Houses have been sanctioned in Veeranarayanam village during 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 2000-2001, these nine houses have been^{leftoveratvarious} stages without completion as reported by the presenting^{officerandhaving} concluded that thereafter the enquiry officer also^{calculatedtheamountstobe}

¶71

recovered from the beneficiaries totally to a tune of Rs.81,818/- have held that the payments made during the Old scheme of R.P.H. has to be recovered from the beneficiaries and duly taking into consideration the technical opinion given by the DEE (Housing), Kothavalasa has held that as the beneficiaries should have constructed houses under Indiramma Phase-ll programme and occupied the houses have to be confirmed. The AE has made stage wise payments according to housing Indiramma programme norms and concluded that the “charges leveled against the petitioner are not proved".

¶72

In view of the fact that the detailed enquiry was conducted by the 4^^ respondent by duly examining the witnesses and also considering the technical opinion given by the Deputy Executive Engineer (Housing), Kothavalasa and held that the charges are not proved, the discipline ry authority ought not to have passed the impugned proceedings dated 08.06.2015 imposing a minor punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, besides recovery of Rs.80,950/- with 12% interest per annum.

¶73

As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the enquiry officer's findings differ from the enquiry report submitted by the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority has no where stated that he differs from the opinion from the findings given by the enquiry officer nor assigned any reasons except mentioning in the conclusive portion of the enquiry officer as “Though the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charge is not proved, the enquiry officer agreed with the observaf" '^f the Presiding Officer i.e.

¶74

¶75

payments were made to the beneficiaries who have aiready^{benefitedinold} schemes”, the Enquiry Officer/Special Officer (Housing), Vizianagaram District has submitted report dated 11.12,2013.

¶76

In view of the fact that though the Enquiry Officer^{concludedthatthe} charge is not proved, the enquiry officer having agreed^{withtheobservations} of the Presiding Officer i.e. payments were made to^the beneficiaries who were already benefited in old schemes, the impugned proceedings N0.8O86/VI/VZM/2OI2, dated 08.06.2015 of the 1®' respondent and recovery proceedings in Rc.No.A2/188/2013, dated 14.08.2015 issued by the 3 rd respondent are liable to be set aside.

¶77

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings No.8086/V1/VZM/2012, dated 08.06.2015 of the 1®' respondent and recovery proceedings in Rc.No.A2/188/2013, dated 14.08.2015 issued by the 3'^'^ respondent. There shall be no order as to^costs.

¶78

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also

¶79

stand closed.

¶80

//TRUE COPY//

¶81

SD/- A VIJAYA BABU assistant registrar //^ SECTION OFFICER

¶82

To Corpn Ltd, D. No. 3-6-184,

¶83

’1. The Managing Director, 2 State Housing Corporation ,

¶84

3, So^:''A‘?.''H(:Snrc%%"oration Lintited, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District. A.P. State Housing Corporation, Limited

¶85

4 The Special Officer, 5 fK«Tpa°'leaetary, Housing Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, . .OPUO! 9. Three CD Copies

¶86

HIGH COURT

¶87

■ ■ DATED: 23/08/2024

¶88

ORDER

¶89

WP.No.27103 of 2015

¶90

«p
1 0 JAN 2025 m {
Co"
, Current Section

¶91

ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

k.srinivasa rao v. the M.D.,Ap State Housing Corpn.Ltd and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

k.srinivasa rao v. the M.D.,Ap State Housing Corpn.Ltd and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chief Engineer (Projects) Srisailam Project, Vs Y. Jammulaiah

Marada Shankar Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal

M.R.K.Rao, Vs The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C

S.Nagamani, Kurnool Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Women Dev. and Child Welfare and 3 Ors.

D.Srinivas Rao Vs Union of India, Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 2 Others

D.Saibaba, E.G. Dist and 2 Others Vs Prl Secy, Revenue (Endowments) Dept., Hyd and 2 Ot