Ch Vijayalakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch Vijayalakshmi, W/o Ch. Narasimha Rao Age 65 years, Occ. Superintendent (Retd.) O/o. Dy Director of Social Welfare, West Godavari dist. H.No. 24 A-13-1, Ashok Nagar, Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, SW Department, Secretariat Building, Velgapudi, Guntur District.

¶14

The Commissioner of Social welfare Department, T.G. Plaza Opp: Manipal Hospital, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶15

The Dy Director of Social Welfare, West Godavari District at Eluru.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

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 call for the records relating to the present impugned orders issued in G.O. Rt No. 201 Social welfare (Vig.AI) Dept, dated 3.7.2018 of the 1 st respondent, and set-a-side or quash the same by further holding the entire procedure adopted by the first respondent for issuing the present impugned order by entertaining perverse findings arrived by the enquiry officer , even

¶18

6

¶19

without their being any evidence, proof is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, vindictive attitude, colorable exercise of power,^total non^application of mind, shockingly disproportionate than the alleged charges, including contrary to Rule 21 (3) of ARCS (CCA) Rules 1991 and^{consequentlytodirect} the respondents to forthwith release full pension and^{otherretrialbenefitssuch} as gratituty, commutation of Vale of pension, ELs amount^{andotherwithhold} amounts with interest at the rate of 24 percent p.a^{fromthedateofretirement} to till actual payment is made.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA^RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II

¶21

The Court made the following order:

0

[3311]

APHC010492042021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

Thursday, the nineteenth day of June, two thousand and twenty five

¶28

Present

¶29

The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. BHANUMATHI

¶30

Writ Petition (A.T.) No.1920 of 2021

¶31

(O.A.No.1398 of 2018)

Between:

Ch.Vijayalakshmi

...Petitioner

and

The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents

¶37

Counsel for the petitioner:

¶38

1 .Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao

¶39

Counsel for the respondents:

¶40

I.G.P. for Services II

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

2 BS8, J W.P. (AT.) No.l920of 2021

¶43

ORDER;

¶44

This writ petition was filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to set aside or quash the orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.201,^Social Welfare (VIG.A1) Department, dated 03.07.2018, of the 1"' respondent and consequently to direct the respondents to forthwith release full pension and other retiral benefits, such as gratuity, commutation of value of pension, amount of earned leave and other withheld amounts with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of retirement to till actual payment is made. The writ petition is originally numbered as O.A.No.1398 of 2018 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. After transfer of case to this High Court it is re-numbered as W.P.(A.T.) No.1920 of 2021. 2. The case of the petitioner in the petition and reply^tothecounter is briefly as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as typist w.e.f.,^16.02.1976 in respondents’ department. She was promoted as Superintendentⁱⁿ April, 2005. While working as Superintendent of A.P.S.W. Residential School, Gundugolankunta, she was transferred and posted^intheoffice of the 3'^'^ respondent during August, 2007. While so working, she was suspended on the allegation of misappropriation of post metric scholarship amounts vide proceedings of the 2 nd respondent in Proc.Rc.No.P1/4226/2009, dated 02.06.2009. Subsequently, the 2 nd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against^{herunderRule20} of A.P.C.S (CC & A) Rules, 1991, framing six charges vide memo, dated 07.11.2009, basing on the special audit report^{dated28.03.2009.} She submitted a detailed charge-wise explanation on 18.02.2010 denying the allegations. While so, the 2^^ respondent issued reinstatement proceedings vide Procgs.Rc.No.P1/4226/2009, dated 26.02.2011, directing the petitioner to report before the Joint Dir|ector,

¶45

3

¶46

BS8, J W.P. (A.T.)No.l920of 2021

¶47

West Godavari. She retired from service on 28.02.2011 afternoon. On 07.01.2012, the 1®^ respondent issued a show cause notice vide Memo No.1429/SW.SER.II(1 )/2009-35, communicating the enquiry officer’s report, dated 30.05.2011, and calling for the petitioner’s explanation. On 03.03.2012, the petitioner submitted her explanation denying the allegations made. On 28.06.2012, the 1®’ respondent^{issuedanother} show cause notice vide Memo No. 1429/SW.SER.II.(1)/2009-49,^dated 28.06.2012, informing provisional decision of withholding entire pensionary benefits of the petitioner permanently as punishment. On 23.08.2012, the petitioner submitted her explanation to the 1 St respondent stating that the allegation in respect of purchase of computers and printers does not reflect on the discharge of her functions as she had not dealt with said file in her tenure in the office of the 3'’^ respondent. Without considering and referring the same, the 1 St respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.201, Social Welfare (VIG.A1) Department, dated 03.07.2018, imposing punishment of withholding entire pensionary benefits of the petitioner permanently. Aggrieved by the action of the 1®* respondent, this petition was^filed. 3. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating briefly^asfollows:

¶48

Tbe post metric scholarship scam in West Godavari District^came to light on 06.02.2009, when one of the charged officers^who is office sub-ordinate was tampering the demand draft form enclosed^toabillof Rs.30,87,561/- with an intent to divert the amount into the personal joint account of a Senior Assistant of B1 Section, O/o. DD (S.W.), West Godavari, Eluru. The petitioner is Superintendent of^{thesaidB1Section.} After conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report on 30.05.2011. The contention of the petitioner that the 1^* respondent issued final orders without applying his mind and without considering explanation of the petitioner is not correct as the government issi^ed

¶49

r

¶50

BSB, J W.P. (A.T.) No.1920 of 2021

¶51

final orders after considering the explanation of the petitioner dated 23.08.2012. The petitioner failed to guide the sub-ordinate^staffinher section regarding procedure and discharge her responsibility being a superintendent of that section. Thus, major penalty was imposed withholding entire pensionary benefits permanently. The petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2011 and the disciplinary proceedings against her were not concluded as on that date. She was sanctioned provisional pension from the date of her retirement. The contention of the petitioner that all the references, except reference No.3 in the impugned G.O., do not pertain to the petitioner is not correct. They relate to the petitioner’s disciplinary case. The contention of the petitioner that she lost further promotion is not correct as no junior to the petitioner had been promoted to the post of District^{SocialWelfare} Officer before the date of her retirement. The charge No.1 is partly proved and the charge No.5 is held proved. Hence, the government, after following due procedure, issued the impugned G.O. by imposing the punishment aforesaid. As this petition is devoid of merits, it is requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. The petitioner filed reply to the counter affidavit further stating briefly as follows;

¶52

The Enquiry Officer held that the charges 2, 3, 4 and^5werenot proved as there is no documentary evidence and charge No.1 was partly proved and charge No.6 was proved without there being any piece of evidence. The findings arrived by the enquiry officer are perverse and cannot be taken into consideration. The financial lapses and irregularities mentioned in the charge memo pertain to a period much before the petitioner joined in the office. Even as per the report of the enquiry officer, the proceedings initiated were not routed through the petitioner nor were any proposals submitted by her. Ail the transactions

¶53

5

¶54

Bsej W.P. (AT.) No.1920 of 2021 under the illegal claims were made by the Senior Assistant. It is clear from the audit report that the bills were not routed through the petitioner. When a common enquiry was initiated, a mandatory obligation^lieson the enquiry officer, in case of major penalty, to hold regular enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity for adducing evidence, rebuttal, examination and cross-examination, as held by the apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of PunjabV In the circumstances, taking cognizance of any adverse statements given by other^{individualsbehind} the back of another charged individual(s) is unsustainable and contrary to the settled legal position. When the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the report of the enquiry officer while apportioning the amount misappropriated against the name of each of the charged officer, imposition of penalty of 100% cut in pension, including pensionary benefits, is not only illegal and arbitrary, but also shockingly disproportionate to the charges framed, Without considering the explanation, dated 23.08.2012, and subsequent representation,^dated 17.07.2017, the impugned proceeding was issued after inordinate delay of more than 12 years as a result of which, the petitioner^sufferedalot of mental agony. In view of the settled legal position, on the ground of delay and laches, the disciplinary proceedings and the consequential impugned order are liable to be quashed.

¶55

¶56

The articles of charge framed are shown below:

¶57

ANNEXURE -I

¶58

(Statement of Articles of charges framed against Smt. Ch. Vijayalakshmi, Superintendent, O/o Deputy Director, Social Welfare, West Godavari District at Eluru (now under suspension).

¶59

1 1990 (6) SLR 73

¶60

6

¶61

BSB, J W.P. (AT.) No.1920 of 2021

¶62

Article of Charge No. 1

¶63

That Smt Ch. Vijayalakshmi, while working as Superintendent, O/o Deputy Director, Social Welfare, West Godavari District at Eluru, colluded with Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, Sr. Asst., B-1 Seat O/o Deputy Director (SW), West Godavari district, and misappropriated Government money to a tune of Rs. 1,71,58,018/- and the said amount was credited in the Indian Bank Joint A/c No. 448015429, Eluru Branch in favour of Smt. S.L. Kantham, mother of Sri S.Venkateswar Rao, B1 Senior Assistant, O/o Dy. Director (SW), West Godavri District by diverting Govt, money under post matric Scholarships with mala^{fideintentionas} detailed below:

¶64

DP / Cheque No. issued bv SBI, Eluru

¶65

864384, dated: 26-6-2008

¶66

168030, dated: 26-6-2008

¶67

867212, dated: 22-7-2008

¶68

862946, dated: 11-6-2008

¶69

151761, dated: 12-9-2008

¶70

151759, dated: 9-9-2008

¶71

151773, dated: 26-9-2008

¶72

873449, dated: 26-9-2008

¶73

30156, dated: 16-11-2006 10. 423288, dated: 19-4-2006 11.424127, dated: 16-5-2006 12. 024215, dated: 21-8-2006 13. 301350, dated: 24-11-2006 14. 260752, dated: 19-6-2007 15.973819, dated: 11-11-2003

¶74

Amount in Rs.

¶75

1,40,190-00 26,71,044-00 7,14,150-00 4,66,275-00 16,00,550-00 25,21,650-00 13,78,830-00 8,55,980-00 4,07,575-00 3,05,760-00 1,18,620-00 4,06,040-00 2,83,580-00 2,38,480-00 48,500-00

¶76

7

¶77

973822, dated: 11-11-2003

¶78

984154, dated: 8-102004 18. 073898, dated: 30-4-2005 19.074165, dated: 13-5-2005 20. 417896, dated: 23-12-2005 21.079396, dated: 9-11-2005 22. 078537, dated: 29-9-2006

¶79

BS8, J W.P. (AT.) No.1920 of 2021

¶80

48,500-00 1,78,045-00 1,40,190-00 1,43,890-00 3,90,000-00 3,89,565-00 1,36,750-00

¶81

A

¶82

Rs. 1,35,68,974-00

¶83

Other irregular drawals:

¶84

23.973820, 973821 and 973823 to 973829, dated 8-10-2004

¶85

984155, dated 8-10-2004

¶86

984156, dated 8-10-2004 26. 872109, dated 13-9-2008 27.872108, dated 13-9-2008 28. 872107, dated 13-9-2008 29. ,dated 13-9-2008 30. 872102, dated 13-9-2008 31.872105, dated 13-9-2008 32.872103, dated 13-9-2008 33. 872106, dated 13-9-2008

¶87

871894, dated 12-9-2008

¶88

3,32,000-00

¶89

1,25,000-00 1,25,000-00 3,44,400-00 6,88,800-00 3,19,800-00 70,644-00 1,45,800-00 5,02,200-00 1,13,400-00 4,86,000-00 3,36,000-00

¶90

Total : Rs. 35,89,044-00

¶91

Grand Total: Rs. 1,71,58,018-00

¶92

8

¶93

r

¶94

BSB, J W.P. (AT.) No.1920 of 2021 (Basis : Special Audit Report dated 28-3-2009 on misappropriatioⁿ Govt, funds in the O/o Dy. Director (SW), West Godavari District furnished by the AO (Audit) O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad & Enquiry Report dated 24-2-2009 of JD (S/ships), O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad.)

¶95

Article of Charge No.ll

¶96

That Smt Ch. Vijayalakshmi, while working as Superintendent, O/o Deputy Director, Social Welfare, West Godavari District at Eluru, Colluded with Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, Sr. Asst., B-1 Seat O/o Deputy Director (SW), West Godavari district, irregularly processed the bills to the Treasury and made irregular drawal of an amount of Rs. 1,71,58,018-00 through DDs / Cheques in favour of S.L.Kantham, a private building owner. On verification of the records and as per the list of Hostel Building Owners, there was no Hostel Building provided by S.L.Kantham. Thus, Smt. Ch. Vijayalakshmi, has misappropriated^the Government money. (Basis: Special Audit Report dated 28-3-2009 on misappropriation^Govt funds in the O/o Dy. Director (SW), West Godavari District furnished by the AO (Audit) O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad & Enquiry Report^dated24-2- 2009 of JD (S/ships), O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad.

¶97

Article of Charge No.lll

¶98

That Smt Ch. Vijayalakshmi, while working as Superintendent, O/o Deputy Director, Social Welfare, West Godavari District at Eluru, colluded with Sri S. Venkateswara Rao, Senior Assistant, O/o the Dy. Director (SW), West Godavari District at Eluru and^made irregular drawal of the Government money for Rs. 1,71,58,018/- from Treasury and credited into the joint account of Sri S. Venkateswara^RaoandS.L. Kantham at Indian Bank Eluru Account No. 448015429.^Theseamounts were diverted to family members of Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, B-1,

¶99

9

¶100

6S8, J W.P. (A.T.) No.1920 of 2021 Sr. Assistant viz; S.Sreevalli, daughter, S.Kumari,^{wife,Suribabu,etc.,} and also office staff i.e. Sri V.Vivekananda, Office Subordinate, Sri B.Seetharamath, Jr. Assistant, Sri A.Benny, Driver^{oftheDy.Director's} vehicle (Private) etc.

¶101

Thus Smt Ch. Vijayalakshmi, Superintendent, O/o Deputy Director, Social Welfare, West Godavari District at Eluru, (U/s)^beinga has violated the procedure laid down in responsible officer G.O.Ms.No.90, SW (Edn.2) Department dated 30-7-2002 and is responsible for alleged misappropriation of above Government^money willfully and deliberately and committed grave irregularities in this regard and utterly failed to discharge her legitimate duties

¶102

(Basis; Special Audit Report dated 28-3-2009 on misappropriation Govt funds in the O/o Dy. Director (SW), West Godavari District^furnishedby 24-2the AO (Audit) O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad & Enquiry Report dated 2009 of JD (S/ships), O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad.

¶103

Article of Charge No.iV

¶104

That Smt Ch. Vijayalakshmi, while working as Superintendent, Social Welfare, West Godavari District at Eluru, O/o Deputy Director furnished inflated figures for getting budget under Post Matric East Godavari and Krishna District as per the Scholarships than comparison statement as given below

¶105

	West Godavari	East Godavari	Krishna
No. of Colleges: (2008-09)	400	600	450
Budget Allocation
2004-2005~ 2005-2006 ~	Rs.17.19,58,000 Rs.11.50,29,OM^	14,16,67,000 TT20,47,000	14,83,11,000 10,13,19,000
2006-2007	Rs.19,99.67,000	20,63,38,000	20,69,78,000
2007-2008	Rs.31,93,66;000	^44.29.000 I	29,15,32,00^

2008-2009	Rs.40,48,92,000

¶106

10

¶107

r

¶108

BSB, J W.P. (AT.) No.1920 of 2021

¶109

It is evident that, the budget obtained by the O/o the Dy. Director (SW), Eluru is more than the actual requirement as verified from the allocations made with reference to the number of College^/ Students in the district. The huge allocation of funds helped Smt Ch. Vijayalakshmi, Superintendent O/o Deputy Director (SW), Eluru to collude with his subordinate, Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, B1-Seat Senior Assistant to allegedly draw and misappropriate the amount to a tune of Rs. 1,01,20,874/- during the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 and also during the period from 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 to tune of Rs.70,00,000/(Basis. Special Audit Report dated 28-3-2009 on misappropriation^Govt funds in the O/o Dy. Director (SW). West Godavari District furnished by the AO (Audit) O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad & Enquiry Report dated 24-22009 of JD (S/ships), O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad. Article of Charge No.V That Smt Ch. Vijayalakshmi, while working as Superintendent, O/o Deputy Director, Social Welfare, West Godavari District at Eluru, allegedly purchased (16) Computers and (13) Printers from Post Matric Scholarship Budget for Rs. 10,67,350/- during the year 2008-09, without observing minimum norms. Purchase of Computers and Printers under post matric scholarships budget is irregular. The relevant records were also not produced to the audit team which shows her negligence and indifferent attitude towards official duties.

¶110

(Basis. Special Audit Report dated 28-3-2009 on misappropriation^Govt funds in the O/o Dy. Director (SW). West Godavari District furnished by the AO (Audit) O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad & Enquiry Report^dated24-2- 2009 of JD (S/ships), O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad).

¶111

11

¶112

BSBJ W.P. (A.T.) No.1920 of 2021

¶113

%

¶114

Article of Charge No. VI

¶115

That Smt Ch.Vijayalakshmi, while working as Superintendent,^O/o Deputy Director, Social Welfare, West Godavari District at Eluru, colluded with her subordinates, tampered and submitted bills to the Treasury for Rs.30,87,561/with T.B.R. No. 937 dated 4-2-2009 towards payment of post matric scholarship to seven colleges. Trans I.D.No. of the bill is 30291 was passed for payment^{on5-2-2009.The} Bank Draft application with list of bank drafts was replaced by another Bank Draft application in favour of S.L. Kantham Building^ownerforan amount of Rs. 30,87,561/-. As the Treasury Staff noticed the tampering of the draft application, the State Bank of India was requested to return the bill. Accordingly, the Bank officers struck the entry in double scroll and returned the bill to the District Treasury Officer^{on5-2-2009.As} such, Smt Ch. Vijayalakshmi, Superintendent allegedly made an attempt for misappropriation of Government funds willfully, deliberately and with malafide intention.

¶116

That Smt Ch. Vijayalakshmi, while working as Superintendent, O/o Deputy Director, Social Welfare, West Godavari District at Eluru, damaged the image of Social Welfare Department by her^aboveactand utterly failed to maintain the integrity and discipline^{andherconductis} unbecoming of a Government Servant and thus contravened Rule 3 (1) (2) of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

¶117

(Basis; Special Audit Report dated 28-3-2009 on misappropriation^Govt funds in the O/o Dy. Director (SW), West Godavari District furnished by the AO (Audit) O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad & Enquiry Report^dated24-2- 2009 of JD (S/ships), O/o CSW, AP, Hyderabad)

¶118

The petitioner submitted explanation to the charges as already noted in^the petition and reply and further stating that the charqes are

¶119

12

¶120

r

¶121

BSB, J W.P. (A.T.) No.1920 of 2021

¶122

frivolous and misdirected. For the financial lapses and irregularities committed for the period much before joining of the petitioner attributing collusion with other charged officers is quite unreasonable and baseless. Neither the audit report nor the enquiry report speaks specifically about the collusion of the petitioner in the scholarship scam. The special audit report shows that S. Venkateswara Rao is responsible for misappropriation of the total amount of Rs.1,71,58,018/-^andthat DDO’s signature on the fabricated bills prepared by^{theB1seatwithout} scrutiny and presented through TBR. With regard to charge No.5 regarding purchase of (16) computers and (13) printers without following minimum norms, she stated that the Deputy Director (SW) is the competent authority and the purchases were made by^{thesanctionof} Dy. Director as per the requirement of the Accounts^{Officerandshe} had not initiated any proposal or pass any bill. If^{therecordswerenot} produced at the time of inspection or audit, the concerned office Assistant shall be held responsible. The petitioner always performed her limited official duties as per the rules. There^{isnomisconducton} her part in any manner and she did not violate any^conductrule. The petitioner always maintained discipline and integrity^{andworkedwith} dedication and sincerity. Since no specific mention^oraccusation is made against the petitioner regarding her involvement in the said scholarship scam either in the special audit report or the enquiry report or in the charge sheet filed by the CBCID or any press reports, it is not fair and proper on the part of the authorities to punish her for the misdeeds of others. Since the documents relied upon,^{forinstitutionof} the enquiry do not point out any lapse on her partⁱⁿ any manner, the petitioner prayed to reinstate her into service with all consequential benefits.

¶123

"N

¶124

13

¶125

Bsej W.P. (A.T.) No.l920of2021

¶126

The main contention of the petitioner is that she was^notfoundto be involved in the alleged scam of misappropriation^{oftheamountand} no criminal case was laid against her and on the other^{hand,theother} persons concerned with the scam were punished being^accused,yet, the petitioner was made scapegoat only on the ground^{thatshewasthe} Superintendent at the relevant period. It is further^{mainlycontended} that no proper enquiry was held by examining the witnesses and permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the witness^andadduceher evidence in defence.

¶127

Nextly, it is equally contended that the delay in the^proceedings held is a ground sufficient to set aside the impugned^proceedings. In this regard, the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in D.Srinivas Vs. Government^ofA.P., Transport, Roads and Buildings (Vig.l) Department and^{others^} State of Telangana and others Vs. L. Galanna and another^^andthe decision in Smt. G. Leelavathi Vs. The State of Andhra^Pradeshand others'^. It is also contended that the Enquiry Officer^{laidstressonthe} preliminary enquiry report, and therefore, the enquiry^{reportsuffersfrom} independent adjudication of the charges alleged and^{therefore,thereis}

¶128

no proper enquiry. In this regard, the petitioner placed^{relianceonthe} decision in Mubashir Hussain Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise-Ill, Hyderabad and others^.

¶129

Insofar as the enquiry is concerned, according to the^petitioner, the presenting officer was not present at the time^{ofholdingtheenquiry}

¶130

2 2013(4) ALT 1 (D.B.) 3 2016 (4) ALD 320 (DB) 4 W.P.Mo 21768 Of 2021, dated 05.07.2022 5 2004 (7) ALT 289 (D.B.)

¶131

14

¶132

BSB, J W.P. (AT.) No.1920 of 2021

¶133

by the enquiry officer. Yet, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The presence of the presenting officer is to enable the enquiry officer to conduct enquiry by placing version of the disciplinary authority to take action against the charged officer. It is the enquiry officer, who has to take evidence. Therefore, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted that the presenting officer was not present on that day, unless some prejudice caused to the charged^{officerisshown} by such absence, recording of statements cannot be faulted. Though the petitioner contended that statements of co-charged officers implicating the other charged officer(s), without allowing cross examination, is prejudicial and that the charged officers were not given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness(es), it is to be noted that after thorough cross-examination of the prosecution witness by A.V.V.D.M.Prasad, one of the charged officers, all the other charged officers, including the charged officer, cross examined^{thewitnessand} when they were again asked to put any questions, they reported no further questions, and moreover the allegations of misappropriation are verifiable from the record as well. The ground for punishment given to the petitioner is mainly lack of superintendence. So,^{thecontention} cannot vitiate the enquiry report against the petitioner. 10. The petitioner contended that she cannot be held liable for misappropriation done before she joined there. The charge reveals a considerable amount misappropriated relates to the period of her tenure also. Her further contention is that the file relating to computers etc was not passed through her. But, it is covered by lack of superintendence. 11. Insofar as misappropriation is concerned, as there was no evidence in that regard in respect of the petitioner,^{noadverseremark} was passed by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner. On charge No.1, the enquiry officer found that the charged officer has denie;d the

¶134

15

¶135

BSB,J W.P. (A.T.) No.1920 of 2021 1 charge since her name was not mentioned in any reports.^Butthe scam had happened in B section for which she was the Superintendent. Hence, there is vicarious responsibility but there is no direct involvement of the charged officer and hence, the enquiry officer held that the charge is partly proved. On charge No.5, the enquiry officer^heldthatthe charged officer, while working as Superintendent, O/o the DD (SW), WG District, at Eluru, purchased (16) computers and (13) printers from Post Metric Scholarship Budget for Rs. 10,67,350/- during the year 2008-09 without observing minimum norms. Purchase of computers and printers under Post Metric Scholarships budget is irregular. The relevant records were not produced to the audit team. Purchase of computers^and printers under post metric scholarships budget is irregular^whichshows her negligence and indifferent attitude of the officer towards her official duties. Since it is the duty of a Superintendent to supervise the activities of the work within the scope of her job, if its failure resulted in huge loss of exchequer, she cannot contend that she is no way responsible for the loss occurred. Lack of superintendence is also a conduct which deserves to be met with penalty in a departmental enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry officer held the petitioner also responsible for such conduct which contributed for the misappropriation due to her negligence in discharging her duty as a Superintendent. 12. It is not a small amount misappropriated in the present^case. The action taken against those who are directly involved in the misappropriation is distinct from the action to be taken against the Superintendent. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner^thatshe is not at all responsible for the misappropriation in any form is not acceptable. 13. Insofar as delay in the enquiry held and the resultant imposition of punishment is concerned, each case is to be dealt with in the ligl^t of its

¶136

W'-

¶137

16

¶138

BSB, J W.P. (AT.) No.1920 of 2021

¶139

own circumstances. In the case of D. Srinivas (2 supra), the charge relates to the year 1998 and no steps were taken immediately^onthe subject matter of charge and it is only pursuant to the complaint lodged against the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) before the Upa Lokayukta and basing on the preliminary report, proceedings were^initiatedand dropped later. But, thereafter, regular departmental enquiry was conducted and merely on the ground that the enquiry officers were changed, there was administrative delay in concluding the proceedings of enquiry. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the charge and the plea of delay, the abnormal delay unexplained by the disciplinary authority, the Division Bench held that the impugned^{orderisliabletobe} set aside.

¶140

Similarly, in the decision in State of Telangana Vs. L. Galanna (3 supra), the Division Bench upheld the^order of the Tribunal in quashing the disciplinary proceedings which were pending for more than a decade without conclusion and the charged^officerwas not found guilty of any misfeasance and malfeasance^and the main ground is only negligence and dereliction of duties in causing loss to the public exchequer. The amount directed to be remitted is Rs.4,46,488/only. Likewise, in the case in G. Leelavathi (4 supra),^astherewas inordinate delay in initiation and also conclusion of the enquiry, the proceedings were interfered with in the writ petition.

¶141

In none of these cases, any set straightjacket formula was formulated to set aside the punishment without going into the other merits, but merely on the ground of delay. 16. In the present case, the facts noted supra do not indicate any prejudice caused to the petitioner in any manner with the delay in punishment. Moreover, the amount of Rs.1,71,58,018/-^{involvedinthe}

¶142

-L/

¶143

BSB,J W.P. (A.T.) No.l920of2021 matter is enormous and such actions need appropriate action. Mere delay should not defeat justice, particularly while dealing with public money meant for a social cause to the benefit of the downtrodden section of people.

¶144

With regard to the quantum of punishment also, the petitioner contended that it is disproportionate and unduly excessive as she was denied 100% cut of pension permanently though there was no finding that she misappropriated any part of the amount and on the other hand, the amount was directed to be recovered from the other persons held responsible for the misappropriation.

¶145

It is also further contended that throughout her service spanning over decades, there has been no complaint against her and therefore, merely on the ground of lack of superintendence, imposition of such serious punishment is causing hardship to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner received provisional pension after her retirement pending enquiry. As the petitioner was not found guilty of misappropriation of any part of the amount and it is only her negligence in supervising the activities which resulted in huge loss of exchequer and the same is intended to be recovered from others found guilty in that respect, imposition of punishment to the petitioner in the impugned order is very harsh. Therefore, the order of punishment can be modified by reducing 100% permanent cut to 50% in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case.

¶146