K Jaya Madhavi Latha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHCOI O279772O22

¶2

EFfr+ lN THE tHs[pGeHclCaA:ToU:igi:gaR:AJA¥NfiDsT:IRc:oPn:ADESH

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.- 17608 OF 2022

¶7

Between: I

¶8

K Jaya Madhavi Latha, W/o K. V. V. Prasad, Aged 45 years, Occ. Goods & Service Tax Officer, 0/o JoI-nt Commissioner, Ananthapuramu, Rio D.No.41777--10, Bhagyanagar Extension, Kalyandurgh Road, Ananthapuramu post, Ananthapuramu District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (commercial Tax) Department, secretarl-at Buildings, Velagapudi, Arnaravathi, Guntur District,.

¶12

The Chief Comml'ssjoner of state Tax, Andhra Pradesh state, Vijayawada.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

petition under Article 226 of the Constl-tution of lndl-a prayl|ng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare the action of the respondents I-n I-nl'tiating baseless disciplI'nary PrOCeedI-ngS and not finall'zing the dl'scipll-nary proceedings jn time, though the enquiry report was submitted in 2017 and delaying the promotl-on of the petitioner on wrong pretext and based on enquI'ry report Of 2017, which enquiry was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and

¶15

xp CCA Rules' and consequently set-aside the impugned Proceedings No. CCTjs Ref.No. Vl/440/2015-ll, dated 24.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 as bad, illegal andl unCOnStitutiOnal and further Promote the Petitioner tO the highercadre with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ of Mandamus `or iJ§sue any Writ, O'rder or Direction in the interest of juStiCe.

¶16

•.A?r'/gt yh!,v

¶17

-€£',I

¶18

-M-ai¢n prayer amended/substitute as pert Court Order dt. 06-12-2022 vide.1,;-+ . ft.i,tl`~

¶19

I.A.No.4/2022 in WP.No.17608 of 2022.

¶20

lANO: 1 OF2022

¶21

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 I direct the respondents to impose the punishment of censure on par with CTO (John SriniJasulu) with effect from 2016.

¶22

IANO: 2OF2022

¶23

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 direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion as DCTO/ Dy. Asst. Commls\i Oner.

¶24

-IANO:3OF2022

¶25

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 suspend the impugned proceedings dated 24.03.202/issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶26

lANO:1 OF2023

¶27

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 I rece'ive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above Writ Petition. I

¶28

fa

¶29

[ANO: 1 OF2024

¶30

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 leave to the petitioner herein to file reply affidavit to the counter filed by the Respondent.herein.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N SAI PHANINDRA KUMAR, LEARNED couNSEL REPRESENTING FOR M/s. CKR ASSOCIATES

¶32

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -I

¶33

The Court made the following order:

fi)

APHCO10279772022

EiE#HFI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT[

¶38

[345 8]

¶39

(special original Jurisdiction)

¶40

TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶41

PRESENT

¶42

THE HONOURABLE SIVIT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶43

WRIT PETITION^{NO-.17608/2022}

¶44

Between'.

¶45

1.K JAVA MADHAVI LATHA, W/O K. V. V. PRASAD, AGED 45 YEARS, occ. GOODS 86 SERVICE TAX OFFICER, 0/O JOINT gHOAMGM+3SAoGNAERR I AENxATNETNHst3uN:AMU kALYRAoN DU D;GNHO '4-177R76-# : ANANTHAPURAMU POST, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,

¶46

."PETITIONER

¶47

AND

¶48

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAX) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDl, ARNARAVATHl, GUNTUR DISTRICT,.

¶49

2.THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE, VljAYAWADA.

¶50

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶51

petition under Article 226 of the Constitut'lon of India Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toprayed to declare the action of the respondents in initiating baseless disciplinary proceedings and not f'lnalizing the disciplinary proceedings in time, though the enquiry repolt was subm'Itted in 2017 and delaying the promotion of the petitioner on wrong pretext and based on enquiry report of 2017, which enquiry Was COnduCted in utter Violation Of the principles of natural justice and CCA Rules and consequently Set-aside the impugned proceedings No. CCTs Ref.No. Vl/440/2015-ll, dated 24.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 as bad, illegal and unCOnStitutiOnal and further promote the petitioner to the higher cadre with all consequential benefits by issuance of writ of MandamuS Or issue any Writ, Order or Direction in the

¶52

2

¶53

interest of J-uStI-Ce and pass such other order or orders as the Honble court Jt may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the cases.

¶54

lANO:1 OF 2022

¶55

Pe{jtI'On under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated l'n the affidavit filed jn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dI-reCt the respondents to impose the punishment of censure on par wl-th CTO (John Srinivasulu) with effect from 2016 and pass such

¶56

lANO: 2 OF2022

¶57

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that jn the circumstances stated in the affl-davit filed in support of the petl'tion, the Hl'gh Couh may be pleased be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for PrOmOtl'On aS DCTO/ Dy. Asst. Comml-ssioner and pass such

¶58

lA NO.. Sol 2022

¶59

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that l'n the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coun may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedI-ngS dated 24.03.202/issued by the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such

¶60

lANO:4OF 2022

¶61

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavI't filed I-n support of the petitl|on, the High Court may be pleased pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the main prayer as follows: "Hence, I-n the interest of J'uStiCe, I't iS humbly prayed to declare the action of the respondents in initiating baseless disciplinary proceedl'ngs and not finalizl-ng the disciplinary proceedings I'n time, though the enquiry report was submitted in 2017 and delayl'ng the promotion of the petl-tioner on wrong pretext and based on enquiry report of 2017, which enquiry was conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural Justice and CCA Rules and consequently set-aside the impugned proceedings No.CCT's Ref.No.V1/ 440/ 2015-ll, dated 24.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 as bad, illegal and unconstitutional and further promote the petitioner to the higher cadre with all consequential benefits by issuance of wrl't of Mandamus or issue any writ, Order or Direction in the interest ofJ'ustiCe and Pass Such Other Order Or Orders aS

¶62

IANO: 1 OF2023

¶63

petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petI'tjOn, the HI-gh Court may be pleased

¶64

EEE= ` ' \

¶65

@ pleased to receive the counter copies on record by allowing the leave petition in the above writ petit-Ion and pass

¶66

lANO..1^OF2024

¶67

retltlu[l ullut=l `JuullVII .V. . _ Ipetition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated _ri in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couh may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein to file reply aff',davit to the counter filed by the Respondent herein and Pass

¶68

counsel for the Petitioner-.

¶69

1.CKR ASSOCIATES

¶70

counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶71

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶72

The Court made the following:

¶73

ORDER..

¶74

Heard learned COunSel Sri N. Sai Phanindra Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

¶75

The Writ Petit®lon iS filed Challenging the Proceedings Of the 2nd respondent v,-de ccT's Ref.No.Vl/440/2015-" dated 24.03.2022, Imposing a punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect

¶76

lt iS COntended that the Petitioner Was appointed aS Ass-lstant commercial Tax Officer (ACTO) in the year 2009, the petitioner Was POSted aS ACTO in Circle-" of AnanthaPuramu, form 2009 to May, 2013. Thereafter, She was transferred to office of the Joint Commissioner, Ananthapuramu. The 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 16.ll.2015, seeking explanation of the petitioner on the alleged ground that the petitioner did not remit the sum of Rs.27,299/-, to the Government treasury, after COlleCting the Same from the

¶77

4

¶78

t#i\

¶79

tax payers. The petitioner contends that the alleged ml-sconduct was of one sri B.Vjnayaka, Junior AssI-Slant, who was responsl'ble for the non reml-ttance of the saI'd amount. It I-s further contended that the petitioner was dill-gent whI'le handl'ng over the sums to her subordinates. The chaIIans submI'tted by them I'n Proof Of reml'ttance of the sums were duly kept I-n the fI'le, the same were subsequently found to be counterfeit challans. l{ ,-s further contended that the Junior AssI-Slant to whom the money was handed over was quI-te SenI-Or person I'n the department having rendered the servI'CeS for SubStantI-al period of ten yea.rs.

¶80

It I-s further contended that the saI'd Srl' B.Vinayaka, had I|n fact

¶81

admitted his guilt and he had reml-tted the sums that have been misappropriated by hI'm. However, wl'thout dropping the proceedings inl-tl|ated agal-nst the petitI'Oner, the punishment was imposed.

¶82

Following are the charges framed.I-

¶83

"Article of chart

¶84

T,hat the,said smt.K.Java Madhavi Latha, the then ACTO, Kalyan:urg and present ACTO, O/o DC(CT'), Ananthapurarn; -h-:s c^o:A::tLt::_ ::rfai: .ir.regularitieS While working as ACTO, Kalyandurg, Ananthapuram division.

¶85

The Deputy commissioner (cT), Ananthapurarn cc>nducted elnquiry on mismatching of challans entered in VATIS with referenc:-;o tr_eas,ury data and reported non-remittance of cash collections ;; ;:x a:a:e .by_i_he_off-ICers in the offices of Anantapuram-I & ll circle to--;`n extent of Rs.7g,58,204/-.

¶86

/

¶87

/ /

¶88

Article of Char e-Il:-

¶89

=ya MadhaVi Latha, the then..?_?_T_O:.,h:IaDIyf:InndCt::gninaan:rI p resen: mAtCKT::y3o'v£;:; , -;atj :I::r:mri ur:Itv:SlaOnnd:hs::efdu nrCet:Oe:::sg :noIDtrheeSea;:rAe:: I:I ouff:cueuf=:i I ;av: co!Ie=t:: :7aS.hQOal_ndh I :tS:aUI:edd rteOCre:P%:i lfnOtro F::sahf:#nO: I:fC i:ux: I;: : : i;tent of R_s 2_7:::.gnrc ba:i nf= :I:udI:Os r=#InsthOG the Goverr7men{ TreasL,ry through Proper Cha//anS aS Per ru/eS TnL,S Sher:se r:sopvoe:ns:b;en;olrI Cm:s®:;yp;:I;;a;IO; O; Govemment money tO an extent Of Rs.27,299r."

¶90

framed against the 6. lt -,S COntended that the two Charges WereI-I-1 petltloner, however, only one charge was proved lt ls contended that slmllar__I__ _i nr_Tn framed agalnst several other officers in the cadre of DCTO, charges Were an Enqutry Officer Was appointed tO enquire 'lntO the Charges ACTOI \J | -- __& CTO, framed agalnst each of the offlcers. The sald Enquiry Offlcer Without fOllOWlng the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the Andhra PradeSh Clv" servlces (classlflcatlon, control and Appeal) Rules,1991 (herelnafter referred to as lthe CCA RuleS'), has Submltted hlS rePOh On 06.12.2`017, stating that the charge No 1 as Proved and Charge No 2 a.-not Proved The said enqulry report was furnlshed to the petltloner on 1104.20" The PetitlOner has submltted her explanatlon on 26052017 The dlSC-lPlinary PrOCeedlngS lnltlated agalnst the petltloner were not flnallzed The claim Of the PetltlOner for promotlon to the next cadre was also denled ChaLlenglng the Same, She flled a wrlt petltlon m wpNo.11407 of 2019 before thlS Court The sald Wrlt pet[tlon was dlsposed of, dlrectlng the respondents to conslder the case of the petltloner for promotlon wlthout regard to the pendlng dlsclpllnary proceedlngs Instead of glvlng effect to the sald order, lt ls contented that the

¶91

respondents have passed the impugned order. The let respondent v,-de memo\S` dated 25.02.2022, dI-reCted the 2nd respondent to place the petitioner before the screening comml-ttee for considerl'ng her case for promotl'on jn terms of the orders of the court l'n w.p. No.11407 of 2019 dated 26.08.2019. lt is contended that instead of consl'derI-ng the same, the 2nd respondent l'mposed the pun,'shment of wl'thholdI-ng two annual increments wI-th cumujatjve effect.

¶92

It is contended by the petI'tiOner that the pe{j{[-oner was never responsl'bre for the alleged misconduct and there has never been any find[-ng w,'th regard to the petitl-oner belng careless Ion discharge of her duties. It is contended that the ]'mpugned proceedI-ngS are not ]'n accordance wI-th Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, I'n as much as no witness was examI-ned, no documents were marked and for the delay that has caused tl'll concludl'ng the proceedings ti" 2016, renders the I-mPugned proceedl-ngs redundant. It Its further contended that enquI'ry Was l'njtiated agal-nst one srI- B.Vl'nayaka, who has been alleged to be responsI'ble for the alleged fraud. A crI-me Was registered agal'nst h,'m and he has adml-tted to the gut-lt stating that he would be solely responsI'ble for the alleged fraud. In the said circumstances, it ,'s further stated that the petl-tI'Oner should not have been subjected to any proceedl'ngs, thus jmposI-ng the punishment of wI'thhOldl'ng of two increments with cumulatl-ve effect was unwarranted.

¶93

The 2nd respondent filed counter affI'daVit stall-ng that the petjtjoner d,'d not file any reply/representation to the memo dated 16." 2015,

¶94

the petjt,'oner filed her representatl'on dated 15.02.2016 and the same was

¶95

\ I

¶96

received by their office on 26.02.2016, by which time the Charges Were framed against the petitioner and the other officers who were alleged to have been involved in the misappropriation of government funds on 25.02.2016. lt is further contended that it is the duty and responsibility of the government servant is to cross check the remitted challan w'lth the challan posting register, available at their office. However, the petitioner had failed tO follow the Same.

¶97

lt is further Stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting was held on 27.08,2019 for approval adhOC Panel of Assistant commercial Tax Officers fit for Promotion tO the Post Of Deputy Commercial Tax Officers for the Panel year 2018-19. The DPC approved three names Of the GSTOs, who were Seniors tO the Petitioner. However, the name Of the petitioner did. not come up for consideration in the said DPC.

¶98

It is further -contended that Subsequently, the Departmental promotion committee meeting was held on 24.08.2022 for approval of the adhoc panel of Goods and Service Tax Officers, fit for promotion tO the POSt Of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax for the panel year 2021-2022 of zone-IV, in the said DPC the name of the Petitioner Was included. The DPC examined the case of the petitioner and found that, the petitioner was awarded punishment of withholding two Annual Grade Increments With cumulative effect v,-de ccsT's Ref.No.V1/440/2015-ll dated 24.03.2022, therefore, while the said punishment was subsisting, the DPC Committee informed that, the petitioner would not be eligible for promotion, as Per GO.Ms.No.342 GAD dated 04.08.1997.

8

rff*r

\

ll. Lt Its contended by the learned counsel for the petjtI-Oner that as q\

¶103

per the proceedI-ngS Of the lst respondent, there is no loss to the ex-chequer and jn the case of a siml'Larly sI-tuated person, the lst respondent has taken a lenl'ent vI-eW Of neglI-gence and procedural lapse on his part, whereas jn the case of the petI'tiOner, though she was not responsible for delay Ion remittance to the credI't Of the government account without any reasons, the major penalty of wjthholdjng two annual I-nCrements wl-th cumulatl®ve effect has been I-mposed. To the enquiry report, the petitioner has submitted her explanation though the same was referred to in the reference column, the explanation was not consl'dered and the impugned order was passed. It is further contended that this court had dl'rected the respondents {o consI®der the case of the petitioner for promotion wl-thout reference to the discl-plinary proceedI-ngS. Thought the lst respondent has requested the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitI'Oner in terms of the orders passed I-n w.p. No.11407 of 2019, I-n a haste manner passed the I-mPugned order.

¶104

The learned counsel appearing for the petl-tl-oner further argues that delay jn conclusion of the discipl,-nary proceedl'ngs is jn violation of the CCA Rules and l's jn violation of pr]'nc,-ples of natural J|uStiCe.

¶105

The learned counsel for the petI'tiOner argued that no appeal is maintaI'nable agal'nst the impugned order sI'nCe the Instant case would fa" under Rule 32(lil) of the Andhra pradesh cl-v" servl-ces (classlfjcation, control and Appeal) Rules,1991.

¶106

9

¶107

14'. The learned Governmerlt Pleader appearing for the respondents would argue that the petitioner was found negligent in discharge Of her duties. The petitioner]S name Was not taken uP for COnSideratiOn in the DPC of 2018-19. Subsequently two annual increments Were Withheld Cumulatively. Therefore, her Case Was not COnSidered for Promotion. ThusJ Stated that She was not eligible for promotion. s.LnCe the Punishment Of Withholding increments was with cumulative effect, the promotion was withheld in terms of G.O.Ms. No.342 GAD dated 04.08.1997.

¶108

Considered the SubmiSSiOnS. Perused the record. As seen from the impugned proceedings, the order suffers from non application of mind having regard to the fact that the authority who has imposed the punishment, refers to the report submitted to the government on the charges framed against the petitioner and based on t'ne instructions, received by him from the government has imposed the punishment. lt completely lacks reasoning and fails to disclose the OffiCerlS application Of mind. Apart from the Same, the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the charges framed against the petitioner.

¶109

[t appears from the record that the Said Sri B.Vinayaka, has rendered service for a considerable period of ten years to the department. ln the llght of the Same, it CannOt\be Said that the Petitioner Was not diligent in entrusting the money to him for remittance to the government treasury, so as to hold that the petitioner was guilty for superv,-sory r,eg/,-gence. The alleged ^llr^r,icr`r, nf]nlinenr,a in handing over the money for remittance to a right

¶110

10

¶111

person would not arise, having| regard to the fact that the said sri B.Vinayaka, IS a regular employee of the department entrusted wlth the dutles of \ remittance of the amount to the government treasury, thus the jmpositl-on of two increments with cumulative effect js grossly disproportionate to the charges framed.

¶112

Accordingly, the I'mPugned proceedI-ngS, V,-de CCT's Ref.No.Vl/440/2015-" dated 24.03.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent l'n the wrl't petitl'on are set asI-de. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶113

As a sequel, I'nterlocutory applications, pending if any, sha" stand

¶114

closed.

¶115

Sd/- K. TATA RAO

¶116

llTF`uECOPYll DEsPEuCrvREcAERR

¶117

To]

¶118

1 The prjnclpal secretary to Government, Revenue (commercial Tax) Department, state of Andhra pradesh, secretariat Buildings, Velagapudl', Arnaravathj, Guntur Distrl-ct.

¶119