Dismissed

M.Subba Rao, S/o. M.Venkanna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary

Telangana HC6 Mar 2014WP/25001/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a Tribunal's dismissal of an original application against a retired Tahsildar. The court rejected claims that natural justice was violated, set aside penalties due to the wife's illness, or that delay precluded punishment for misappropriation of funds. The court found the disciplinary action was valid and adequate compensation was not required.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

M.Subba Rao, S/o. M.Venkanna Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.25001 of 2003

¶4

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

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed petitioner challenging the order in O.A.No.8000 of 1997 dated 30.10.2003, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶6

2. The petitioner/applicant is a retired Tahsildar at Kakinada. A regular departmental enquiry was ordered against him for his misconduct, while he was in service. The charges levelled against him are as follows:

¶7

CHARGE 1:“that he being a responsible Government servant while working as P.D.S.Deputy Tahsildar, Amalapuram, made remittances to a tune of Rs.64,34,249-56 against the cost of ESSCOM Rice of Rs.65,44,710-43 resulting short remittance of Rs.1,10,460-87 during the period from 6/82 to 12/83 and also failed to account for the short remittances which tentamounts to misappropriation of Government money of Rs.1,10,460-87 so far ESSCOM Rice is concerned.”

¶8

CHARGE 2:“that he being a responsible Government Servant while working as P.D.S. Deputy Tahsildar, Amalapuram, made remittances to a tune of Rs.26,41,470-84 against the sale value of levy sugar of Rs.27,16,326-00 resulting short remittance of Rs.74,855-16 during 6/82 to 12/83 and also failed to account for the short remittance which tentamounts to misappropriation of Government money.”

¶9

CHARGE 3:“that he being a responsible Government Servant while working as P.D.S. Deputy Tahsildar, Amalapuram, made remittance to a tune of Rs.1,000-00 against the cost of Rs.3,852-42 towards Civil Supplies Rice resulting short remittance of Rs.2,852-40 for which the individual failed to account for during the period from 6/82 to 12/83 which tentamounts to misappropriation of

¶10

Government money.”

¶11

CHARGE 4:“that he being a responsible Government Servant while working as P.D.S. Deputy Tahsildar, Amalapuram, failed to monitor the credit linkage scheme properly with the Fair Price Shop dealers and also failed to maintain a register showing the stocks allotted to each dealer and transport charges payable to each dealer for which the officer is supposed to maintain under the model scheme introduced in Amalapuram Taluk during 1982-83 and thus caused loss of Government money of Rs.1,88,168-43 which tentamounts to misappropriation of Government money.”

¶12

3. After conducting the regular departmental enquiry, a report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the material on record and after considering the report of the enquiry officer, imposed the punishment of 25% cut in the pension of the applicant and also ordered for recovery of Rs.1,88,168-43, which was the loss caused to the Government, from him. Challenging the same, the above said Original Application was filed. After considering the material on record, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissed the said Original Application. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶13

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition is that the enquiry officer’s report dated 06.02.1994 was not furnished to the petitioner; that no witness was examined; and that the Model Scheme for Distribution of Essential Commodities, which was introduced at village point has been followed by the petitioner and therefore, he has not committed any misconduct. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶14

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services II contended that along with the show cause notice

¶15

itself, copy of the enquiry officer’s report was enclosed, and it is not the case of the petitioner in the explanation that he has not received the enquiry officer’s report; and that if the Model Scheme for Distribution of Essential Commodities at village point has been followed, then the question of remittance of certain amounts in the Government account does not arise, and therefore after considering the material on record, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the O.A and the order needs no interference of this Court.

¶16

6. It is not a case of violation of principles of natural justice, or not following the rules governing the service condition of the applicant/delinquent officer in conducting the enquiry. Though, it is stated that the procedure under A.P.C.S (CC&A) Rules 1963 has been followed, case of the applicant is that the enquiry ought to have been conducted in the procedure contemplated under A.P.C.S (CC&A) Rules 1991. The Tribunal has given a finding in the Original Application that there is no much difference between the old rules and the new rules. Therefore, it would not cause prejudice to the case of the applicant. Similarly, with regard to the non-supply of the enquiry officer’s report dated 16.02.1992, it is clear that when a show cause notice was issued to the applicant for submitting explanation, the enquiry officer’s report was enclosed. The applicant did not specifically pleaded about nonreceipt of the said report in his explanation. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/ applicant has not received the enquiry officer’s report is wholly untenable and devoid of merits.

¶17

7. No doubt, as per the Model Scheme, it may be a fact that the dealers have to deposit the amount in the concerned Bank and produce the Demand Draft, so that the stocks would be

¶18

released. But, in view of the fact that the procedure has not been followed by the petitioner and in view of the fact that he himself remitted the amounts in the Treasury, there are short remittances during the period from 6/82 to 12/83 to a tune of Rs.1,10,460-87, Rs.74,855-16 and Rs.2,852-40. Therefore, the charge No.4 relates to charge Nos.1 to 3. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not received the amounts from the concerned fair price shop dealers. Therefore, during the period of earlier scheme, the essential commodities would have been given to the fair price shop dealers after receipt of the amount from the concerned persons. So, that is the reason why the petitioner having received the monies from fair price shop dealers might have deposited the amount into the Treasury. Therefore, there is some evidence on record show that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Though there was a delay in initiating the disciplinary action, at the same time, since it relates to the misappropriation of the Government money, the delay cannot be taken as an advantage by the petitioner/applicant. So, there are no grounds to interfere with the same.

¶19

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner died, his wife is entitled for pension and she is suffering from old age ailments. That cannot be a ground to modify the punishment. Unless it is shown that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority shocks the conscience of the Court, normally, the Court would not interfere with the same. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this

¶21

writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶22

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶23

_______

¶24

JUSTICE ANIS

¶25

Date: 06.03.2014 sr

M.Subba Rao, S/o. M.Venkanna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Subba Rao, S/o. M.Venkanna v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary

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

Government of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary to Vs Dr.K.Pushpa, Civil Asst.Surgeon

Government of Andhra Pradesh rep., by Vs Dr. P.Bhaskar Rao, Medical Officer

The Union of India, Vs T. Seshachalapathi

Smt. v.Jayalaxmi, D/o.Anji Reddy, Vs Government of A.P.

The Transport Commissioner, Vs Smt.C.Subhashini

B.Brahmaiah (died) per Lr Vs The Government of A.P. rep.by its Secretary