B.V. Ramana Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B.V. Ramana Reddy, S/o. B.Narayana Reddy, aged about 52 years Occ: Assistant Engineer O/o. P.I.U. Panchayati Raj Sub-Division, Santhamagulur, Prakasam District, R/o. 13-7-6, 6th Lane, Gunturvari Thota, Guntur-522 001

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District

¶13

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayati Raj Engineering Department, Enikepadu, Vijayawada~521 001, Andhra Pradesh, Krishna District ^

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

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 order or direction, calling for the records relating to the impugned G.O.Rt.No. 1014, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development (Vig-ll) Department, dated 31-10-2015, issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to AP.Civil Services (Classification. Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and unconstitutional.

/

J

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restore the OA.4324/2016 on to the file of this Hon'ble Tribunal by calling the order dt.25-04-2019 and adjudicate the matter on merits.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S S SIVA KUMARI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶22

The Court made the following order:

[3311]

'l . 'i

APHC010604432024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

Wednesday, the second day of July, two thousand and^twentyfive

¶29

Present

¶30

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi

¶31

Writ Petition (AT) No.3 of 2024

¶32

(O.A.No.4324 of 2016)

¶33

Between:

¶34

B. V. Ramana Reddy S/o B. Narayana Reddy R/o Gunturuvari Thota, Guntur

¶35

...Petitioner

¶36

and

¶37

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and others

¶38

Respondents

¶39

Counsel for the petitioner;

¶40

S. Siva Kumari

¶41

Counsel for the respondents:

¶42

G.P. for Services

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

2 BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

The writ petition is originally filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide O.A.No.4324 of 2016. After transfer of the case to this Court, it was re-numbered as W.P.(A.T.).No.3 of 2024. The writ petition is filed to quash G.O.Rt.No.1014, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vig-ll) Department, dated 31-10-2015, issued by the respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

¶47

The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows;

¶48

a. The petitioner, while serving as Assistant Engineer, P.R. SubDivision, Giddalur, Prakasam District, was placed under suspension on 24.03.2005, based on allegations of irregularities in the execution of Food for Work Programme (F.F.W.P.) / S.G.R.Y. works and misappropriation of rice worth Rs. 66,88,742/-. The Superintending Engineer, P.R. Circle, Guntur, conducted an enquiry^andsubmitted a report dated 23.05.2005, to the respondent No.2 stating that the allegations against the petitioner were minor in nature and recommended dropping of further action. However, disregarding the said report, the respondents issued a charge memo on 21.07.2006, alleging that the petitioner misused 17.33 M.Ts, of rice worth Rs.97,914.50/-, causing loss to the State’s exchequer. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 18.08.2006, denying the charges and requesting that further action be dropped. b. Pending disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 27.11.2007. A joint inspection was conducted on 03.05.2006 by officials from the RWS (P.R.) Division and P.R. Vigilance & Q.U. Sub-Division which found no substantial evidence of

¶49

3

¶50

BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶51

wrongdoing. The Superintending Engineer, F\R. Circle, Guntur, submitted written arguments on 25.02.2010, supporting^{thepetitioner’s} claim of innocence. The Commissioner of Inquiries submitted^itsreport on 24.12.2011, but his findings were not properly considered. c. The Vigilance and Enforcement officials inspected the^worksafter a considerable delay, during which natural factors,^{suchas,heavyrains} and lack of maintenance, could have obscured evidence of the executed works. The distribution of rice was supervised by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer (M.P.D.O.) and the Civil Supplies Department, and the petitioner had no direct involvement in any misappropriation. Despite these submissions, the respondent No.1 issued a memo on 09.03.2012, calling for an explanation from the petitioner, to which he responded in detail on 09.09.2012. d. Without proper consideration of the petitioner’s defense or the findings of the Superintending Engineer, the respondent^No.1imposed a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment^{withcumulative} effect, vide G.O.Rt.No.1014, Panchayat Raj and Rural^Development (VIG.II) Department, dated 31.10.2015. The penalty^{isdisproportionate,} arbitrary, and violative of the Andhra Pradesh Civil^{Services(C.C&A)} Rules, 1991. Since the petitioner is only a supervising authority, he cannot be held solely responsible for the alleged misappropriati^onatthe village level, particularly when higher authorities, like the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, were the controlling^officers.

¶52

e. The impugned punishment is a major penalty under the^A.P.C.S. (C.C. & A.) Rules, 1991, and was imposed without proper^{justification.} The delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings,^{spanningovera}

¶53

4

¶54

BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶55

decade, has caused undue prejudice, and the findings of the inquiry were not based on conclusive evidence.

¶56

The respondents filed the counter affidavit stating briefly as follows; a. The Vigilance & Enforcement Department, in its Report No. 95, dated 24.08.2004, had conducted a detailed inspection of works relating to sanction and execution of works, allotment and release of F.F.W.P. / S.G.R.Y. rice in five mandals of Prakasam district including Giddaluru mandal where the petitioner had worked as Assistant Engineer. The V & E Department found serious irregularities and misappropriati^on of 109.1814 M.Ts. of rice worth Rs.65,88,000/lakhs across these mandals. Specifically in Giddaluru mandal, the inspection^revealedthat out of 120 randomly checked works, rice was released for 9 works without any execution and excess rice was released for 14 works, resulting in misappropriation of 94.661 M.Ts. of rice worth Rs.5,34,834.65/-. The V & E Department held the petitioner along with five other officers responsible for these irregularities in Giddaluru mandal and recommended disciplinary action against^them.

¶57

b. Based on the findings in the V & E report, the government placed the petitioner under suspension vide G.O.Rt.No.515 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vig.l (A) Department, dated 24.03.2005, along with the other officers involved in the case. The Superintending Engineer, P.R. Circle, Guntur, in his report, dated 23.05.2005,^{hadstatedthatthe} works were executed as per records and the observation^ofmisuseof rice was based on presumption that trees would not have grown in jungle clearance areas. The government found this report^unreliableas it did not contain actual inspection reports or dates of inspection. The

¶58

5

¶59

BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶60

V & E Department in their remarks, dated 04.11.2006, maintained their findings noting that the inspection was conducted 2 Ya years after the works and that there was no evidence of the jungle^{clearanceworkson} ground.

¶61

c. Proper disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing charge memo vide Memo No.10038A/ig.l(A)/2004-27, dated 21.07.2006,^tothe petitioner and the other officers. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence. After considering the explanations, the government entrusted the case to Commissioner of Inquiries (C.O.I.) vide G.O.Rt.No.692, dated 15.05.2007, for conducting inquiry into the charges. The C.O.I. in the report, dated 24.12.2011, stated that the written arguments submitted by the petitioner were brief and devoid of facts to rebut the charges, and that no defense witnesses were examined to prove proper execution of works. The C.O.I. noted that the Joint Inspection Reports relied by the petitioner had not addressed the specific irregularities pointed out in the V & E report and lacked credibility.

¶62

d. The findings of the C.O.I. were communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No.10039A/ig.lA/2004, dated 09.03.2012, seeking his explanation, and after considering his reply, the government proposed penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. The A.P.P.S.C. was consulted vide letter, dated 08.05.2015. The A.P.P.S.C. concurred with the proposed penalty vide letter dated 16.09.2015. Consequently the final order was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.1014, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (VIG.II) Department, dated 31.10.2015, imposing the penalty on the petitioner. The entire disciplinary proceedings from suspension to imposition of penalty were conducted in accordance with A.P.C.S.(C.C. & A.) Rules,

¶63

6

¶64

BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶65

1991 and principles of natural justice, and the penalty imposed was proportionate to the established misconduct. 4. Heard both sides.

¶66

The main grievance of the petitioner is that there^{wasinordinate} delay in the inspection and thereby, the work done could not be identified for want of subsequent maintenance after^execution of the work and further, the inspection team is said to have^{visitedtheareas} without assistance from the petitioner and similar employees who could have correctly identified the work done area and therefore, the conclusions drawn by the C.O.I. is based on assumptions^and the explanation given by the petitioner was not properly^answered. That apart, it was also vehemently contended that many reports^areinfavour of the petitioner to drop the allegations, such as the report of the Superintending Engineer, P.R Circle, Guntur, dated 25.03.2005, report of the joint inspection team in furtherance of the inspection held on 03.05.2006 and also the written arguments of the Superintending Engineer, P.R Circle, Guntur submitted on 25.02.2010, but without considering the best material, the petitioner was held guilty and punishment was disproportionately awarded. It was also vehemently contended that the role of the petitioner is only supervisory,^whereasthe work was done under the direct control of M.P.D.O and Civil Supplies department and as such, there is no possibility of the petitioner to directly involve in any other misappropriation.

¶67

The punishment imposed is also challenged on the ground^that A.P.P.S.C. was not consulted. The petitioner placed reliance on the decisions in support of the argument. The petitioner^{furthercontended} that the explanation offered by C.O. 17 similar to the explanation of .the

¶68

7

¶69

BSBJ W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶70

petitioner was considered and the proceedings were^{recommendedto} be dropped, whereas the petitioner was not given the^samebenefit. In this regard, the petitioner placed reliance on the^decisionsin

¶71

2010(2) see 497, wherein there was no consideration of the explanation of the petitioners by the respondents in the order which was dealt with. It was also further contended that the procedure contemplated under the C.C.& A. Rules for holding the enquiry was not duly followed. 7. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents vehemently contended that all these grounds^had been raised before the Enquiry Officer and they all had^beenanswered in detail giving reasons for each and every explanation submitted by the petitioner and therefore, there is no truth in the contentions of the petitioner. He further submitted that the A.P.P.S.C. was also consulted in respect of the proposed penalty as described in the counter and therefore, it is not correct to state that the penalty imposed is not valid for want of consultation.

¶72

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:-

¶73

(i) Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others^ It was held at paragraph No.20 as follows:

¶74

“20. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any

¶75

1 (2009) 2 see 570

¶76

8

¶77

BSBJ W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶78

reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of self-same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required^tobe proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are.^As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.”

¶79

(ii) Director (Marketting), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.^Vs.Santosh Kumarl It was held in paragraph Nos.6 & 11 as follows:

¶80

“6. Before the High Court, a solitary contention was raised on behalf of respondent stating that despite a detailed response preferred by the respondent herein, the Appellate Authority passed the order dated 15.5.2000

¶81

2 (2006) 11 see 147

¶82

9

¶83

BSB,J W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶84

without considering any of the issues raised by the respondent herein as petitioner in the writ petition.^The learned Judges of the High Court had also perused the records placed before them by the Corporation. It is^seen from the impugned order passed by the High Court that the Judges were satisfied that no reasons whatever had been recorded in either not accepting the issues raised by the respondent in response to the show cause notice nor had the claim of the respondent made in the various grounds raised by him in his appeal been considered. The learned Judges of the Division Bench felt that^the orders of punishment dated 30.12.1999 as well as the order dated 15.5.2000 by which the respondents appeal had been rejected are cryptic and non-speaking orders and, therefore, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority are liable to be setaside on the ground of non-application of mind. The High Court also held that the action taken by the authorities^is arbitrary. However, the learned Judges, while settingaside the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order, issued a direction to the appellant-Corporation^to reinstate into service with continuity in service with all consequential benefits. Liberty was also reserved to^the appellant to re-initiate the enquiry from the stage of consideration by the Punishing Authority and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 11. A perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority would only reveal the total non-application^of > mind by the Appellate Authority. We, therefore, have^no

¶85

10

¶86

BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶87

other option except to set-aside the order passed by^the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and remit the matter for fresh disposal to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority shall consider^the detailed representation made by the respondent and^also consider the detailed report of the Enquiry Officer^and the records placed before him in its proper perspective and decide the matter afresh on merits. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the entire case only^on the basis of records already on record. The respondent^is not permitted to place any further material or record before the Disciplinary Authority. The order passed by the High Court is set-aside for the above reason. We also set-aside the direction issued by the High Court ordering re-instatement into service with continuity in service and all consequential benefits. The Disciplinary Authority is also directed to dispose of the matter,^within three months from the date of receipt of this order,^after affording an opportunity to both the parties. The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.”

¶88

(iii) G. Valli Kumari Vs. Andhra Education Society and others (1 supra), it was held at paragraph Nos.19 to 21 as follows:

¶89

“19 In his order, the Chairman of the Managing Committee did refer to the allegations leveled against^the appellant and representation submitted by her in the light of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer but^without even adverting to the contents of her representation^and

¶90

11

¶91

BSBJ W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶92

giving a semblance of indication of application of^mindin the context of Rule 120(1)(iv) of the Rules, he directed her removal from service. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of punishment was passed by the Chairman without complying with the mandate of the relevant statutory rule and the principles of natural justice. The requirement of recording reasons by every quasi judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to^the affected person is one of the recognized facets of^the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has^theeffect of vitiating the order passed by the authority concerned. 20. A careful reading of the Tribunal's order shows^that though it did not find any procedural infirmity in the inquiry against the appellant, the order passed by^the Chairman of the Managing Committee was nullified only on the ground of violation of Section 8(2) of the Act^read with Rule 120(2) of the Rules inasmuch as permission^of the Director was not obtained before removing the appellant from service. The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and indirectly restored the order passed by the Chairman of the Managing Committee because it was of the view that Section 8(2) is not applicable to the minority institutions. Neither the Tribunal nor the Division Bench of the High Court dealt with and decided the appellant's challenge to the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and her plea that the extreme penalty of removal from service imposed on^her

¶93

12

¶94

BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶95

was not justified because she was not found guilty of any serious misconduct.

¶96

Since the order of punishment passed by the Chairman of the Managing Committee is vitiated due to violation of the statutory rules and the principles of natural justice, we may have remitted the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to consider whether or not the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the appellant was disproportionate to the misconduct found against her or the action taken by the management was wholly arbitrary or unjust but keeping in view the^factthat the appellant was removed from service more than 13 years ago, we do not consider it proper to adopt that course.”

¶97

(iv) In Badru Huda Ahmed Vs. The State of Assam and others^, it was held at paragraph No.7 as follows:

¶98

7 Framing of charges or dropping a particular charge is not within the jurisdiction of the Inquiry^Officer if he is different from the Disciplinary Authority. ...It^isalso apparent on the face of the removal order that the disciplinary authority found all the charges framed against the petitioner as proved. But as observed earlier, charge No.3 was dropped by the inquiry officer in his report without any authority and it is not understood^how the disciplinary authority could hold that all the charges drawn against the petitioner had been proved.”

3 1972 (7) SLR 62

[S'

13

BSB, J W.P.(AT).No.3 of 2024

¶103

¶104

It is clear that the enquiry authority has considered all the objections raised and the explanation given by the petitioner and duly answered. Merely because the other authorities are also part of the working team, the supervisory role of the petitioner is not insignificant and failure to discharge such duty calls for disciplinary action. The cases cited were decided basing on the facts and circumstances thereon. Each case has to be decided i n the light of the facts contentions and evidence.

¶105

Insofar as consultation with the A.P.P.S.C. also, there is no denial of the correspondence with the A.P.P.S.C. indicated in the counter. Therefore, there was due consultation and consequently penalty cannot be challenged on that ground, At the most, in the light of the explanation offered by the petitioner, the quantum of punishment ought not to be as high as is awarded. Therefore, penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect is altered to stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect.

¶106