Dismissed

The Superintending Engineer, v. Mir Ismail

Telangana HC10 Jun 2014WP/13790/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order setting aside a major penalty of reduction in rank. The Court held that since no regular departmental enquiry was conducted under Rule 20 of the relevant Rules before imposing the penalty, the Tribunal was correct in quashing it.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal's order setting aside the major penalty is dismissed.

The Superintending Engineer, Vs Mir Ismail — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.13790 of 2002

¶4

O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 17.08.1999, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal), in O.A.Nos.1587 & 1436 of 1994, whereunder and whereby, the proceedings impugned in these Original Applications in Proceedings No.3719/A5/92, dated 01.02.1994, issued by the first petitioner imposing the punishment of ‘Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay” with cumulative effect were set aside.

¶6

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicantrespondent No.1 was originally appointed as Work Inspector Grade-IV in Zilla Parishad, Krishna District, and later he came on transfer to the Roads & Buildings Department. As the Service Register of the applicant in Zilla Parishad was not available, the concerned Authority proposed to open a fresh Service Register at the request of the applicant. While opening the Service Register, to note down the date of birth, the applicant produced a Transfer Certificate bearing No.130/60-61 dated 16.07.1960 issued by the Head Master, A.K.T.P.M. High School, Vijayawada, wherein the date of birth of applicant was shown as 05.12.1940. A doubt has arisen with regard to the correctness of the date of birth of the applicant. Therefore, as he is said to have studied in Noble High School, Machilipatnam, the Head Master of the Noble High School, Machilipatnam sent the Study Certificate of the applicant, wherein the date of birth was shown as 14.06.1937. Similarly,

¶7

when a letter was addressed to the Head Master, A.K.T.P.M High School, Vijayawada, it is clarified that the Transfer Certificate bearing No.130/60-61 dated 16.07.1960 does not belong to the applicant and denied the issuance of such certificate by the Head Master. As the Transfer Certificate produced by the applicant was found to be false, an enquiry was ordered against the applicant by appointing the then Executive Engineer and after conducting enquiry with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the date of birth of the applicant, he submitted a report. Considering the report dated 10.08.1983, a punishment of “Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay” with cumulative effect was issued against the applicant by an order dated 01.02.1994 and that was under challenge before the Tribunal in those Original Applications.

¶8

3. The Tribunal after considering the entire material, gave a categorical finding that the Disciplinary Authority has not framed any charges nor conducted any enquiry as per the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (for short ‘the Rules’), but simply acted upon the report dated 10.08.1983, so as to impose the punishment of reduction of rank and accordingly, allowed the Original Applications. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶9

4. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II contended that the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules has been followed; that the applicant played fraud on the Department by producing a bogus and false School Certificate and therefore, the impugned proceedings before the Tribunal need no interference by the Tribunal and prayed to allow

¶10

the petition.

¶11

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents contended that the imposition of punishment is solely based upon the enquiry report dated 10.08.1983 and that enquiry relates to enquiry to the correctness or otherwise of the date of birth of the applicant and that it is not a regular departmental enquiry initiated against him under the Rules and that in view of the fact that a major penalty was issued without conducting an enquiry, the punishment was rightly set aside by the Tribunal and that order needs no interference by this Court.

¶12

6. Though it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Services-II that regular departmental enquiry was conducted, but as seen from the proceedings impugned before the Tribunal, it do not indicate that a regular departmental enquiry was initiated or conducted for imposing major penalty. Under Rule 9(vii) of the Rules, reduction in rank with cumulative effect is a major penalty. Under Rule 20, it is clear that a major penalty cannot be imposed unless a regular departmental enquiry is conducted or held in the manner provided under Rules 20 & 21. The petitioners herein have not produced the copy of the enquiry report for taking disciplinary action nor the copy of Articles of Charges issued to the applicant. So, it is a case where no Articles of Charges were framed and charges have been served on the delinquent officer and no regular departmental enquiry as contemplated under Rule 20 of the Rules has been conducted. Considering this fact, the Tribunal rightly set aside the punishment order as the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty without conducting a regular departmental enquiry. After

¶13

perusing the material on record, it is found that no regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the applicant and the punishment was solely basing on the enquiry report, which was in respect of the correctness of the date of birth of the applicant.

¶14

7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶16

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

_______ JUSTICE ANIS

¶18

Date: 10.06.2014

¶19

The Superintending Engineer, v. Mir Ismail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintending Engineer, v. Mir Ismail

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

The Government of a.P., Vs Ammula Raj Kumar

The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Vs a. Rajesh Babu

G. Nagarajarao Vs The Director General

C. Ashok Kumar, Vs The Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and

V. Balvanth Rao, Vs The Principal Secretary

K. Ashok Kumar Vs Smt. G. Pramila