Allowed

S. Krishna Murthy v. The Principal Secretariat to Govt.(Housing Development)

Telangana HC19 Jun 2013WP/14339/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging G.O.Ms. No.85 which conferred discipinary action against the petitioner. The court held that the enquiry officer's finding that charges were not proved rendered the proceedings unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The G.O.Ms. No.85, dated 28.06.1999, confirmed in appeal vide G.O.Rt. No.26, dated 31.01.2000, were set aside and the writ petition was allowed.

S. Krishna Murthy Vs The Principal Secretariat to… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14339 OF 2000

¶3

Date: 19-06-2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

S. Krishna Murthy. - - - Petitioner. And The Principal Secretary to Government, (Housing Development) Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others. - - - Respondents.

¶6

This Court made the following :

¶7

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.14339 OF 2000

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner challenging the G.O.Ms. No.85, Housing (HB-I) Department, dated 28.06.1999, which was confirmed in Appeal vide G.O.Rt. No.26, Housing (HB-I) Department, dated 31.01.2000, and quash the same.

¶10

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for General Administration, appearing for Respondent No.1, and Sri A.K. Jayapraksh Rao, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶11

The brief facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Engineer on 31.08.1976. Subsequently, he was placed as In charge Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 1992. As in-charge Deputy Executive Engineer, it was his duty among other duties to inspect the open lands and land under encroachment belonging to the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board and also the lands under encroachment, which are not fit for construction of building and to recommend for sale of such lands. In discharge of his official duties, he submitted a report stating that one Chakravarthy and V. Ravinder Reddy (Smt. R. Vijaya) were in possession of 98.22 Sq. yards and 95.33 Sq. yards of land at Baghlingampally, A.P.H.B. Colony. The Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner was authorized to sell the lands, where the total extents of the encroached land is less than 100 Sq. yards, to the adjacent house owners or to the persons in occupation of the same by collecting the cost of such land. Accordingly, the recommendations of the petitioner were approved by the Vice Chairman and Housing Commissioner and the corresponding sale deeds were executed by the second respondent on 31.12.1994.

¶12

Subsequently, Sri Chakravarthy submitted a representation, which was received by the Assistant Estate Officer on 15.09.1997, contending that 95.00 Sq. Yards of land has been encroached by him and he is ready to pay the market value for the same. Similarly, Ravinder Reddy submitted a representation on 12.09.1997 with a request to sell the encroached land of 95.33 Sq. yards of land, as the same is less than 100 Sq. yards. Then it appears that the Vigilance Commissioner made inquiries and recommended for departmental action in the matter. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a regular enquiry and framed the following charges against the petitioner.

¶13

“CHARGE No.1: While functioning as Dy.EE(L), A.P.H.B., Hyderabad, in connivance with Sri Chiranjeevi Rao, A.E.O. and Sri Mahenderkar, A.E.(L) of A.P.H.B. bearing No.12275/J7/94 and 8138/J7/94 (clubbed together) relating to the applications of Sri Chakravarthy and Smt. R. Vijaya and application of Sri Ravinder Reddy for regularization of the land encroached by them at Banghlingampally Housing Board Colony and that he has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a public servant and thereby contravening rule 3 (1) & (2) of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964”.

¶14

The petitioner submitted his reply mainly contending that the duties of Assistant Engineer, Deputy Executive Engineer and Assistant Estate Officer are different one and Assistant Estate Officer is an individual post and the A.E.O. should satisfy himself with all information furnished by the Dy.E.E. (Lands) before forwarding the file to higher authorities for seeking their approval. It is also his case that the extents of land encroached by Chakravarthy and Ravinder Reddy as reported by him on the date of his report were correct. The Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner

¶15

herein have not been proved. The Enquiry Officer observed that the petitioner processed the file pertaining to Chakravarthi and Ravinder Reddy only for sale of encroached land though it forms part of bigger chunk of land.

¶16

As seen from the facts of the case, the compound wall was constructed after the sale of the plots to Chakravarthi and Ravinder Reddy. There can be any doubt to say that they encroached the excess land. The crucial question is whether they encroached the lands as on the date of submission of report by the petitioner or subsequently. If at all they encroached subsequently, the petitioner cannot be said to be responsible for the same. The petitioner’s case is that Ravinder Reddy and Chakravarthi were in occupation of 95.35 Sq. yards and 98.22 Sq. yards respectively as on the date of submission of his report. The crucial aspect as to when those persons encroached the remaining part of the land is not clear from the records. The department has not produced any evidence to show that those persons were in possession or in occupation of the excess land i.e. excess to the extents shown by the petitioner, as on the date of submitting his report. Therefore, it has to be held that charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. When the Enquiry Officer himself reported that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved, the impugned proceedings cannot sustain any longer.

¶17

Moreover, another circumstance in this case is that the Government ordered enquiry vide G.O.Ms. No.74, dated 11.09.1997 into the allegations against N. Malla Reddy, Executive Engineer and A. Linga Reddy, Deputy Executive Engineer, but subsequently vide G.O.Ms. Nos.6 and 7, dated 11.01.1999, the said disciplinary proceedings were closed by simply warning them. It appears that the Vice Chariman and Housing Commissioner by his letter dated 17.09.1999, recommended the Government to consider the appeals filed by the petitioner and K. Mahenderkar favourably.

¶18

In the light of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for setting aside the impugned proceedings issued in G.O.Ms. No.85, Housing (HB-I) Department, dated 28.06.1999 confirmed in appeal vide G.O.Rt. No.26, Housing (HB-I) Department, dated 31.01.2000.

¶19

As a sequel, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶20

_____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date:19-06-2013. Dsh.

¶21

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶22

206

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.14339 OF 2000

¶24

June 19, 2013

¶25

DSH

S. Krishna Murthy v. The Principal Secretariat to Govt.(Housing Development)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Krishna Murthy v. The Principal Secretariat to Govt.(Housing Development)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Yellaiah, Vs State of A.P. rep.by its Principal Secretary Food

Ece Indutries Limited Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

S.Upadranath, Vs Transmissopm Corporation of a.P.Limited

Smt. v.Prameela Rani, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Max Pharma Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Government of Andhra Prdesh

Mr. K. Mahenderkar Vs Principal Secretary to Govt. (Housing Development)