B.Suguna Kumar Raja, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT, FOREST, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (SERVICES - IV) DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶14

THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR FOREST, WILD LIFE MANAGEMENT CIRCLE, TIRUPATI

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring initiation of Disciplinary proceedings and

¶17

2

¶18

issuing Articles of Charge dated 31.05.2019, imposing penalty of stoppage of four (4) annual grade increments with cumulative effect which will have effect on Pension vide proceedings No.4621/2017/A and DC - 1 dated 29.03.2022 and the orders of the Appellate authority in confirming the orders of the 2nd Respondent in Government Memo No. 1106/SEC - IV/A1/2022 dated 21.11.2023 illegal, arbitrary and violates of Articles 14,1 6, 21 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 20 of AP CCA Rules and consequentially declare that the Petitioner is entitled for notional promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest from the panel year 2019 - 2020 over and above his immediate junior with all consequential attendant benefits and to pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 pleased to issue an interim direction suspending the operation of orders in proceedings No. 4621/2017/A & DC - 1 dated 29.03.2022 and the orders of the Appellate authority in confirming the orders of the 2nd Respondent in Government Memo No. 1106/SEC - IV/A1/2022 dated 21.11.2023 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶22

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 pleased issue an interim direction directing the Respondents to forthwith consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest in the existing vacancies pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.P V RAMANA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR SERVICES I (AP)

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.1487 of 2024

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶32

“…. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring initiation of Disciplinary proceedings and issuing Articles of Charge dated 31.05.2019, imposing penalty of stoppage of four (4) annual grade increments with cumulative effect which will have effect on Pension vide proceedings No.4621/2017/A and DC-1 dated 29.03.2022 and the orders of the Appellate authority in confirming the orders of the 2nd Respondent in Government Memo No. 1106/SEC - IV/A1/2022 dated 21.11.2023 illegal, arbitrary and violates of Articles 14,1 6, 21 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 20 of AP CCA Rules and consequentially declare that the Petitioner is entitled for notional promotion to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest from the panel year 2019 - 2020 over and above his immediate junior with all consequential attendant benefits and to pass ….”

¶33

Heard Mr. P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed as direct recruitee Forest Range Officer on 02.6.2006 and worked as Forest Range Officer at Pulicat Bird Sanctuary, Sullurpet from 26.11.2014 to 26.5.2017. Basing on a complaint made by one P.Sreenivas Reddy, R/o Wallamedu Mandal against the petitioner and B.Chandra Sekhar, DFO WML Division, Sullurpet, stating that there are certain irregularities in issuing NOC within the

¶35

4

¶36

sanctuary and Eco Sensitive Zone areas of Pulicat Bird Sanctuary for prohibited activities against Rules and guidelines of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Basing on the said complaint, the respondents have issued charge memo to the petitioner vide articles of charge dated 31.5.2019 with the following charge:

¶37

“ Article: That Sri B.S.Kumar Raja, Forest Range Officer has exhibited gross neglect of duty, resulting in issuing of No Objection Certificates (N.O.Cs) within the sanctuary area and Eco-Sensitive Zone areas of Pulicat Bird Sanctuary for the prohibited activities against rules and guidelines of Wildlife (P)Act 1972 and Eco Sensitive Zone Notification by MoEF, New Delhi, dated 26.6.2015.

¶38

Thus it is evidence that, the said Forest Range Officer has miserably failed to perform his duties as per the guidelines of Wildlife (P)Act 1972 and Eco Sensitive Zone Notification by MoEF, New Delhi, dated 26.6.2015 and failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government employee, failed to perform his official duties conferred on him in his best judgment, in violation of Rules 3(1)(2) & (4) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules 1964.”

¶39

Basing on the said charge, the respondents have issued notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted explanation on 12.8.2021. Accordingly, vide proceedings dated 25.01.2022, enquiry has been conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted report. The petitioner has submitted his explanation to the enquiry report. However, without considering the same, the respondents have passed

¶40

5

¶41

punishment order withholding four increments with cumulative effect. As against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the appellate authority has confirmed the orders of the disciplinary authority vide order dated 21.11.2023 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition has been preferred.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that as the charge itself is very vague and the petitioner is only a Forest Range officer and he is not the competent authority to issue NOC’s, the respondents ought not to have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner based on anonymous letter. Further, he has also placed reliance on the Annexure-II and Annexure-III of the articles of charge. In Annexure-II there are ten documents relied on and Annexure-III five witnesses. But surprisingly, while conducting enquiry, though they have referred the witnesses and out of five witnesses, four witnesses have attended the enquiry, there is no finding or discussion with regard to oral enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer. Further there is no mention about the documents which are placed at Annexure-II of the charge memo. Hence the enquiry report is not in accordance with the Rule 20(18) of the C.C.A.Rules. Wherein Rule 20(18) of the C.C.A.Rules clearly stipulate the procedure with regard to

¶43

6

¶44

articles of charge and the statement of imputation of mis-conduct or misbehavior, the defence of the Government servant in respect of each articles of charge, an assessment of evidence in respect of each articles of charge and the findings on each articles of charge. But on perusal of the enquiry report, there is no discussion about the evidence more particularly oral evidence adduced by the witnesses. Except question and answers. On perusal of the assessment of evidence, there is no appreciation of the oral evidence in the enquiry report. Hence the enquiry report is contrary to Rule 20 more particularly Rule 20(18) of the A.P.C.C.A.Rules.

¶45

Rule 20(18) of the A.P.C.C.A.Rules, further stipulates the procedure of defence of the Government servant in respect of articles of charge. Though the petitioner has specifically contended that he is not the competent authority to issue NOC, but the said defence has not been answered or discussed in the enquiry report.

¶46

Further learned counsel has made his submissions basing on the grounds raised in the Writ Petition more specifically has placed reliance on third ground wherein respondent no.2 initiating the departmental proceedings only against the petitioner though the complaint is against the petitioner and the then D.F.O Wild Management. Hence the initiation of very departmental proceedings

¶47

7

¶48

against the petitioner alone is with a malafide intention and only to scape goat the petitioner against the charges framed. In fact, two charges have already been considered by one Divisional Forest Officer, Vigilance-II and submitted his report on 12.6.2017 after considering the entire material more particularly with regard to the ground of NOC’s and finally reported that said anonymous complaint is baseless and far from truth. One more Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division also considered with regard to the complaint of issuing NOC’s and prohibited activities within the sanctuary. And in that report also stated that the complaint against the petitioner is false and baseless. When the two statutory authorities have already conducted enquiry and submitted reports stating that there is no truth in the complaint made by P.Srinivas Reddy, but surprisingly for the reasons best known to the respondents, have initiated disciplinary action only against the petitioner and conducted enquiry based on anonymous letters which are already found baseless.

¶49

Reply to the same, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has made his submissions basing on the averments made in the counter filed by respondent no.2 in which it is stated that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Wildlife Management Circle, Tirupati has issued orders appointing the Chief

¶50

8

¶51

Conservator of Forests, Wildlife Management Circle, Tirupati as Inquiry Officer to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and the Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor. The Inquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry giving all reasonable opportunities to the petitioner herein to defend his case and prepared his enquiry report basing on the material evidence available on record and concluded enquiry holding that the charge framed against the petitioner herein are held proved beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the Inquiry Officer was communicated to the charged officer. Accordingly, the charged officer has submitted his further defence statement on 07.3.2022 and after examining the entire material with reference to the findings of the enquiry officer disciplinary authority is taken independent decision by concluding the disciplinary proceedings imposing punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect on the lapses on the part of the petitioner has proved. Considering the gravity of the charges and misconduct, the punishment was imposed to the petitioner which is in accordance with A.P.C.C.A.Rules.

¶52

Reply to the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no enquiry has been conducted against the other officers except the petitioner and further there is no reply in the counter with regard to the compliance of Rule 20(18) of the A.P.C.C.A.Rules.

¶53

9

¶54

Even a perusal of Annexure-II wherein the respondents have relied on ten documents, but none of the document was considered by the Enquiry Officer in his report. Further there is no finding with regard to the charge. In fact learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically contended that the petitioner is not the competent authority to issue NOC’s. Only the Divisional Forest Officer is the competent authority. But for the reasons best known, such objection has never been considered. In fact the assessment of evidence by the enquiry officer also states that the NOC in the rank of Deputy Chief Conservator of Forest is the authority under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act 1972. If that could be the case, as the petitioner is working as Forest Range Officer, he is not the competent authority, the charge itself is vague and contrary to rules. Further there is no finding in the enquiry report with regard to inspection conducted by the earlier officers. 9. Considering the said submissions and a perusal of the documents more specifically, the enquiry report, though they have taken the evidence of four witnesses, but in the findings and in the assessment of evidence, no finding or discussion with regard to the oral evidence adduced by the four witnesses. Considering the enquiry report as well as findings of the earlier report submitted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Vigilance-II, as well as the Divisional Forest

¶55

10

¶56

Officer, Flying Squad Division, Tirupati dated 23.6.2017, when once there is an assessment by the authority stating that the Deputy Chief Conservator of Forest is the competent authority to issue NOC’s under Wild Life Protection Act 1972, the respondents ought not to have initiated disciplinary proceedings only against the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the department should initiate action against the concerned person who has issued NOC’s violating the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972.

¶57

In the instant case, there is no reference about the concerned officer. Hence this Court is safely concluding that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against non-competent authority i.e. the petitioner herein leaving the competent authority itself is selective discrimination. Further even a perusal of the enquiry report, though they have examined four witnesses, there is no discussion with regard to the witnesses and no findings in that regard. In the said circumstances, the enquiry report also vitiates and it is in contravention of Rule 20(18) of the A.P.C.C.A.Rules.

¶58

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29.3.2022, the enquiry report dated 25.01.2022 and the order of rejection of appeal dated 21.11.2023 are set aside and the matter is once again remanded to competent authority directing to conduct fresh enquiry more specifically

¶59

11

¶60

as per Rule 20(18) of the A.P.C.C.A.Rules, 1991. It is needless to say that in view of the punishment imposed against the petitioner, his promotion was already denied, if any juniors have been already promoted, the case of the petitioner may be considered.

¶61