P.Kutumba Rao Vs Director General od Prisons

This writ petition is originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh A d ministrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.18 9 5 of 2016. After transfer o f the case to this Court, it was re-numb e d as

¶22

2

¶23

BSB, J W.P. (A.T) No.150 of 2021

¶24

W.P. (A.T.) No.150 of 2021. The writ petition was filed to declare the proceedings No.CWF2/Car Loan/2015, dated 10.05.2016 issued by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, void and without jurisdiction, apart from being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶25

The case of the petitioner, is briefly, as follows:

¶26

a. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the 1^st respondent, he was promoted as Accounts Officer. Both these posts are under the jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent and do not belong to the jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent. Therefore, the petitioner works under the control of the 2^nd respondent only. While the petitioner was working in the office of the 1^st respondent, some complaints were made against the 1^st respondent by unknown persons, for which the 1^st respondent bore grudge against the petitioner with suspicion. Therefore, misusing his power and authority, the 1^st respondent and also acting as the 2^nd respondent only to take revenge

¶27

3

¶28

BSB, J W.P. (A.T) No.150 of 2021

¶29

against the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent issued a memo dated 06.02.2016 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within ten days as to why the entire car loan should not be recovered with fine, penal interest, besides disciplinary action for deceiving the higher authorities by willfully submitting false documents, alleging that the petitioner, not only failed to follow the terms and conditions for sanction of car loan, but also mislead the higher authorities by submitting the false documents. It was also mentioned that it was not known whether the petitioner had obtained prior permission from the competent authority to acquire movable property which was proposed and registered on 27.06.2008 and the car loan obtained on 21.08.2014 from the A.P. Prisons Department, Central Welfare Fund.

¶30

b. The 2^nd respondent is making such kind of allegation though the office record is available in its office and moreover, the petitioner obtained necessary permissions. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 15.02.2016, enclosing the proceeding dated 10.05.2016 of permission for purchasing new car through bank loan and also informing the car loan obtained in the year 2008 and 2014. The loan amount obtained in the year 2014 was not from the government funds. It was obtained from

¶31

4

¶32

BSB, J W.P. (A.T) No.150 of 2021

¶33

the amount of welfare fund contributed by the members themselves. The 2^nd respondent has power to grant other loans but not car loan. The authorities used to sanction car loan not only to the petitioner, but also to many others who already purchased cars with an intention that interest can be earned on the loans given to the members which benefits the Central Welfare Fund. The petitioner and other members who obtained loan used to regularly pay monthly installments through deduction from their salaries. The 1^st respondent or the 2^nd respondent has never pointed out any irregularities against any other member similarly placed. If at all the loan was not intended to be given to any member or employee already possessing a car, the authorities should have insisted for taking an affidavit to that effect. In the absence of any specific rules basing on invalid rules or draft rules, the 1^st and 2^nd respondents are incompetent to issue the proceedings dated 06.02.2016 impugned in the petition. The 1^st and 2^nd respondents have never initiated any action by issuing the proceedings dated 06.02.2016, against any member of the Central Welfare Fund at any time even though so many similar incidents happened. It is only due to bias and prejudice against the petitioner as stated above, misusing the power and

¶34

5

¶35

BSB, J W.P. (A.T) No.150 of 2021

¶36

authority as the 1^st respondent and also as the 2^nd respondent, the impugned proceeding dated 06.02.2016 was issued directing the Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the 1^st respondent to recover penal interest amount of Rs. 37,620/- from the petitioner together with the principal amount of car loan which is outstanding against him as on the date from the salary of May, 2016 payable on or after 01.06.2016. The petitioner paid the amount of all installments, except four installments due of Rs.13,545 x 4. The 1^st respondent wanted to recover the said amount. The impugned proceeding dated 10.05.2016 was issued by the 1^st respondent but signed by the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, for all the above reasons, the impugned proceeding is liable to be set aside.

¶37

Initially, the 1^st respondent filed counter dated 27.12.2022. Again, the 1^st respondent filed counter affidavit dated 23.10.2024, stating briefly as follows:

¶38

a. The petitioner was appointed as shroff in Treasuries and Accounts Department. Subsequently, he was promoted several times. The petitioner stated that he intended to purchase a Swift Car, make 2012, from Smt. D.Vasundhara, Hyderabad and

¶39

6

¶40

BSB, J W.P. (A.T) No.150 of 2021

¶41

requested to sanction loan of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Andhra Pradesh Prisons Department Central Welfare Fund, assuring that he would repay the amount as per the Andhra Pradesh Prisons Department Central Welfare Fund Rules. Thus, car loan of Rs.3,00,000/- was sanctioned. The interest on the loan is Rs.25,080/-. The monthly installment is Rs.13,545/-. As per the terms and conditions, the person availing car loan should hypothecate the vehicle in favor of the concerned unit officer or deposit the R.C. book. The petitioner, vide his representation dated 27.10.2015, submitted R.C book of the vehicle bearing No.AP 29 AE 1724. The R.C book revealed that the vehicle was registered on 27.06.2008, i.e., prior to the date of request of the petitioner for sanctioning loan. Thus, the petitioner grossly misused the loan granted from the Central Welfare Fund. As such, the 1^st respondent issued show cause notice dated 06.02.2016, because the rules direct maintenance of strict discipline among the subscribers of the Central Welfare Fund and to avoid misuse of loans as was done by the petitioner. As the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad was nominated as the President of Andhra Pradesh Prisons Department Central Welfare Fund, the Memo

¶42

7

¶43

BSB, J W.P. (A.T) No.150 of 2021

¶44

dated 06.02.2016 and proceedings No.CWF 2/Car Loan/2015, dated 10.05.2016 were signed by the President, Central Welfare Fund – cum – Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services. Therefore, the memo and proceedings were correctly issued by the 1^st respondent who is also the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 15.02.2016, requesting to drop further action against him. Not satisfied with the explanation, the 1^st respondent issued the proceeding dated 10.05.2016 awarding penality of penal interest @ 1 ½ times i.e., Rs.37,620/and the Assistant Accounts Officer was directed to recover the amount together with the principal amount of loan outstanding from the salary of the petitioner May, 2016. Meanwhile, the petitioner approached the Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1895 of 2016 to suspend the proceeding dated 10.05.2016. The petition was opposed by filing counter. The petitioner cleared the entire loan with interest. But, the penality of the interest was not recovered from the petitioner so far due to the pendency of O.A.No.1895 of 2016 i.e., the present petition. The petitioner retired from the service on 28.02.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶45

8

¶46

BSB, J W.P. (A.T) No.150 of 2021

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order / proceeding is illegal for the reasons stated in the affidavit and the respondent failed to answer about the loans similarly taken by the other employees. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted as in the contents of the counter noted above.

¶48

The counter filed by the 1^st respondent indicates that it has not disclosed by what authority penality was imposed. No rule of the Welfare Fund is placed before this Court to justify the action proposed under the impugned proceeding to impose penality and also its immediate recovery. If the proposed action was taken by exercising the authority under the service rules, no regular enquiry as required under its service rules was held before imposing the punishment of penality. That apart, the counter is silent about loans similarly granted to several other employees. Under these circumstances, and moreover, the petitioner discharged the entire amount of loan with interest, there is need to interfere with the impugned proceedings.

¶49