Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 673 (AP)

A. Janardhana Reddy v. Government Of A. P.

2001-07-04

S.ANANDA REDDY, S.R.NAYAK

body2001
S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the order of the learned A. P. Administrative tribunal, Hyderabad dated 6. 3. 1998 made in OA No. 34593 of 1991 upholding the validity of the order of the Government in g. O. Ms. No. 84 Revenue (CT. I) Department dated 6. 2. 1991 dismissing the petitioner herein from service from the Commercial tax Department is assailed. ( 2 ) WHEN the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the office of the assistant Commissioner, Commercial taxes, Circle No. IV, Hyderabad during the period 13. 4. 1987 to 20. 6. 1987, he was placed under suspension by order dated 20. 6. 1987 on the ground that he and other officers visited Vattimarthi village of nalgonda District, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 2000/- from one T. Mallaiah (PW1) of Nagarjuna Modern Rice Mill and thereafter the petitioner and others went to Chittiyal and met the rice mill owners in that place and demanded a bribe of Rs. 5000/- from Sri Pandiri Bikshapathy (PW3), Ranga Satyanarayana (PW4 ). In that regard charge memo No. 612/ct. I (i)/ 88-2 Revenue (CT. I) Department, dated 23. 6. 1988 was issued to the petitioner. It reads"charge: That you, while working as Senior assistant, Office of the Asst. Commissioner, commercial Taxes, Circle IV, Hyderabad from 13. 4. 1987 till you were placed under suspension i. e. , 20. 6. 1987, actuated by corrupt motives and in abuse of your official position, colluded with Sri G. Kameswara Rao, ACTO, sri G. Bhaskara Rao, Senior Assistant and sri D. Amarnath, Attender of your department and Sri G. Narayana Dass, typist in the office of Inspector General, special Task Force, Hyderabad hired a taxi bearing No. ADY 3399 at Hyderabad, visited vattimarthi village on 17. 6. 1987and demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 2000/- from Tadimalla Mallaiah of Nagarjuna modern Rice Mill, for not inspecting his rice mill and not booking any cases against him and again went to Chittiyal, met Sri Ranga satyanarayana and Pandiri Bhikshapathi, rice Mill owners and demanded bribe of rs. 5000/- from them for not booking cases against them and for not inspecting their mills and that thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) of the Rules framed under the A. P. Civil services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) act, 1960. 5000/- from them for not booking cases against them and for not inspecting their mills and that thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) of the Rules framed under the A. P. Civil services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) act, 1960. " ( 3 ) ON the above charge enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as TDP, for brevity ). On behalf of the prosecution nine witnesses were examined as P. Ws. 1 to 9 and nine documents were produced and marked as Exs. P. l to P. 9 whereas on behalf of the petitioner-delinquent one P. Ananda Reddy was examined as D. W. 1 and six documents were produced and marked as Exs. D. l to D. 6. The TDP, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded the finding that the first part of the charge that the petitioner-delinquent demanded a sum of rs. 2000/- and accepted the same as bribe from P. W. I is not proved and that the second part of the charge that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs. 5000/- from PW3 and other millers of Chittiyal village is established. The Government of Andhra pradesh on receipt of the report from TDP issued a second show cause notice and passed g. O Ms. No. 84 dated 6. 2. 1987 dismissing the petitioner from service as a disciplinary measure. The said action of the Government was assailed before the learned A. P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in oano. 34593 of 1991. It was contended before the learned Tribunal that the findings recorded by the Chairman, Tribunal for disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad are based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion and not on legal evidence. It was also contended that no reliance could be placed on the evidence of PW5 because he failed to disclose the names of the charged officials in the complaint, Ex. P. 8. The learned tribunal rejected both the contentions and consequently dismissed the OA and upheld the validity of G. O. Ms. No. 84. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the order of the learned Tribunal. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner would reiterate the same contentions put forth before the learned Tribunal and point out that there is absolutely no evidence at all to establish that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. No. 84. Hence this writ petition assailing the validity of the order of the learned Tribunal. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner would reiterate the same contentions put forth before the learned Tribunal and point out that there is absolutely no evidence at all to establish that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/- from PW3 and other millers of Chitityal village and admittedly PW5 was not there when the petitioner alleged to have demanded bribe of rs. 5000/- and, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW5 to establish the guilt of the petitioner as regards the demand of Rs. 5000/- as bribe. The learned counsel would also point out that non-disclosure of the names of the petitioner and others in the complaint, Ex. P. 8, is not merely an accidental slip on the part of PW5 and if pw5 were to know the names of the petitioner and others, he would have disclosed their names in the complaint, ex. P. 8. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, Ms. Marie desai, learned Government Pleader for services-I, would, at the threshold, point out that the power of judicial review of disciplinary action is very much circumscribed by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court and this court in the course of judicial review cannot reappreciate the evidence and record a finding different from the one recorded by the Enquiring authority and the Disciplinary authority. Learned Government Pleader would seek to draw support from the evidence of PW5 to sustain the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/- as bribe from pw3 and other millers in Chittiyal village. Learned Government Pleader would also point out that the petitioner, for the reasons best known to him did not enter into the witness box before the TDP to explain as to why and how he happened to be at the place of PW3 and came to be apprehended and produced before PW8. Ultimately, learned government Pleader would submit that no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the disciplinary action taken against him. ( 6 ) BEFORE dealing with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it may be appropriate to briefly define the parameters of judicial review of disciplinary actions. Ultimately, learned government Pleader would submit that no case is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the disciplinary action taken against him. ( 6 ) BEFORE dealing with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it may be appropriate to briefly define the parameters of judicial review of disciplinary actions. It is quite often held and reiterated by the Constitutional Courts that in reviewing disciplinary action taken against public servants, the Court cannot act as an appellate authority and reappreciate the evidence and record a different finding in place of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. Of course, if the court finds that the findings on misconduct recorded by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority are perverse or based on no legally permissible evidence , it can interfere with such findings of the Enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority, as the case may be. The Court cannot go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence on the basis of which the finding regarding misconduct of the delinquent employee is recorded. In the premise of these well-settled principles governing judicial review of disciplinary action, we proceed to consider the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 7 ) THERE is no need for us to refer to the first part of the charge levelled against the petitioner that he demanded a bribe of rs. 2000/- and accepted the same from pw1, because according to the Tribunal that part of the charge is not established. The disciplinary action taken against the petitioner is essentially based on the second part of the charge that he demanded a bribe of Rs. 5000/- from PW3 and other millers of chittiyal village. The only thing to be seen by us in the present writ petition is whether there is any acceptable legal evidence to sustain the finding recorded by the TDP and accepted by the Government. The TDP, dealing with the second part of the charge, in paragraph 19 has held:"19. Coming to the aspect as to whether the persons, who have demanded bribe from the rice millers at Chittiyal is concerned, PW2 to pw4 did not identify the CO and others before this Tribunal. But PW3 has stated that the same officials who came in the morning came to his house in the evening. Coming to the aspect as to whether the persons, who have demanded bribe from the rice millers at Chittiyal is concerned, PW2 to pw4 did not identify the CO and others before this Tribunal. But PW3 has stated that the same officials who came in the morning came to his house in the evening. The officials who came in the event were co, CO in TEC20/88 and CO in TEC 23/88 and two others who could not be identified as they ran away. PW5 has handed over the above referred 3 COs and driver of the car at the police station and the SI has remanded them into judicial custody. So the presence of CO, CO in TEC 20/88 and CO in TEC 23/88 in the evening at the residence of pw3 in the presence of P. W. 5 cannot be disputed and the identity of the officials also has been established to the effect that CO and CO in TEC 20/88 and CO in TEC 23/88 were the persons, who came in the evening and are the same persons, who came in the morning and also that they demanded and they agreed to pay Rs. 5000/- collected from all the millers as illegal gratification. "further dealing with the contention advanced before it on behalf of the delinquent, in para 21, the TDP recorded its finding which is as follows:"21. . . Hence I hold that the second allegation has been proved by the prosecution as against the CO and COs in TEC Nos. 20 and 23 of 1988. "having held so, quite curiously in paragraph 26 of the report the TDP has stated that the charge relating to the petitioner demanding illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/- from P. Ws. 2 to 4 has not been established by the prosecution against them. The learned counsel for the petitioner would draw our attention to the above observation of the tdp and contend that even according to the tdp the second part of the charge is also not proved. The contention of the learned counsel is not well founded. The TDP has recorded the above finding without giving any reasons whereas it has given cogent reasons in paragraph 19 of the report for its finding against the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel is not well founded. The TDP has recorded the above finding without giving any reasons whereas it has given cogent reasons in paragraph 19 of the report for its finding against the petitioner. It seems to our mind that what is stated in paragraph 26 is an accidental slip because the finding recorded in paragraph 21 of the report is based on reasons given in paragraph 19 and the paragraphs to follow it. The reasons given by the TDP in paragraph 19 in recording the finding against the petitioner regarding second part of the charge cannot be said to be perverse nor could it be said that it is based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) IT is true as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that when the petitioner alleged to have demanded bribe of Rs. 5000/- from PW3, pw5 was not there. However, PW5 in his evidence has stated"i am a resident of Chittiyal. I was Sarpanch during the period from 1967 to 1987. PW3 is my brother. PW3 has a rice mill at chittiyal. I know P. Ws. l, 2 and 4. PW1 belongs to Vattimarti and he has got a rice mill. Vattimarti village is at a distance of 3 KMs from Chittiyal. PW1 resides in goaparaipalli. PW2 and 4 also have rice mills at Chittiyal. On 17. 6. 1987 PW3 and pw4 came to me at about 3. 00 p. m. to my house and told me that six persons claiming to be officials of Enforcement wing of Sales tax Department came in the morning and demanded for payment of Rs. 15,000/- as illegal gratification from the rice millers and they have agreed to pay Rs. 5000/- and the officials have directed them to collect rs. 5000/- in all from all rice millers of chittiyal and arrange for payment in the evening to them. They went away stating that they will come in the evening. Later pw1 came to me, and informed that the sales Tax Officials came in the morning to him and have taken Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification from him, for not inspecting his mill and also for not booking any cases against him. They went away stating that they will come in the evening. Later pw1 came to me, and informed that the sales Tax Officials came in the morning to him and have taken Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification from him, for not inspecting his mill and also for not booking any cases against him. All of them stated that they suspect the said 6 persons who claim to be enforcement Officers may not be the officers belonging to the Department. Then we all went to the house of my brother PW3 which is nearby my house. In addition to them other millers also came there. I went to the house of PW3 after arrival of the officials there, who are 6 in number including the driver of the car. They came in a car. Out of the 6 persons the C. O. in TEC 20/88 showed his identity card and disclosed his name as kameswara Rao, and he has stated that he is working as ACTO Commercial Tax department at Hyderabad. Another person who was there has disclosed his name as janardhan Reddy (CO) who is present now in Court. He stated that he is working in the same department. "further, in cross-examination, PW5 deposed as follows:"by perusing Ex. P. 8 witness states that he did not mention the name in Ex. P. 8. The contents of Ex. P. 8 are true whatever they stated on my enquiry by going near the car. I mentioned in Ex. P. 8. I did not mention in detail of comparing the receipts contained in the book handed over by CO in TEC 20/88 to me with the original receipts that were with the millers and found the difference etc. , in Ex. P. 8. I also did not mention in ex. P. 8 that the officials have demanded for payment of Rs. 15,000/- and later they agreed to give Rs. 5000/-in Ex. P. 8. Rice Millers did not pay any amount to the officials, they only stated regarding the demand. I also mentioned in Ex. P. 8 that I am President of telugu Desam Party, Mandal. Later I did not enquire with the SI as to what happened in this case. The ACS officials enquired with me and recorded my statement. It is not true to suggest that nothing happened in my presence and I filed a false complaint Ex. I also mentioned in Ex. P. 8 that I am President of telugu Desam Party, Mandal. Later I did not enquire with the SI as to what happened in this case. The ACS officials enquired with me and recorded my statement. It is not true to suggest that nothing happened in my presence and I filed a false complaint Ex. P. 8 at P. S. Chittiyal. I saw the CO, CO in TEC. 20/88 and CO in TEC 23/88 only at that time. I did not see them on any earlier occasion. I have got a share in the rice mill which stands in the name of PW3. Witness adds PW3 himself manages the mill. . . . . " ( 9 ) IN disciplinary proceedings the misconduct of the delinquent employee need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the doctrine which is invariably applied in criminal trials proper. The only thing to be seen by the reviewing Court is whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority is based on preponderance of probabilities. Keeping that in mind, when we look at the evidence of PW5, it cannot be said that reliance on the evidence of PW5 is unwarranted and illegal. Of course, the evidence of PW3 is of no help in establishing the guilt of the petitioner delinquent as regards the second part of the charge as pw3 turned hostile. The following was suggested to PW3 by D. P. "it is not true to suggest that I am deposing falsely in variation of my earlier statement to help the CO and other officials. It is not true to suggest that I stated that I cannot identify though I know the CO and other persons came to our village on that day to help them. " ( 10 ) ADDED to these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner-delinquent should have entered into the witness box before the TDP and explained his conduct as to why and under what circumstances he happened to be at the residence of PW3 along with others when they were apprehended and taken to the police station and handed over to PW8. It also seems to us from the records that the petitioner-delinquent did not file any reply to the charge memo dated 23. 6. 1988. It also seems to us from the records that the petitioner-delinquent did not file any reply to the charge memo dated 23. 6. 1988. Therefore, taking into account the entirety of facts and - circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner by the Government. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.