Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 764 (AP)

Govt. of A. P. v. V. Veera Reddy

2013-09-16

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, S.V.BHATT

body2013
Judgment : LNR, J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions, a common order, dated 29.02.2012 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1967 of 2010 & batch is challenged. The facts, that gave raise to the filing of these writ petitions, are as under: 2. In the year 1994, general elections to the Legislative Assembly were held. The sole respondents in each of the writ petitions were working as Inspectors of Police in various places in Khammam District. For the bandobasth to be undertaken during the election, quite large number of private vehicles in the District were hired. Alleging that irregularities have taken place in the matter of hiring of private vehicles for the election duty, an enquiry was undertaken by the A.C.B. A report was submitted by it on 19.04.1997 alleging that the then Superintendent of Police and various officials including the respondents herein committed irregularities. Articles of charges were framed against the respondents on different dates in the year 1999 and explanations were submitted. Not satisfied with the explanations submitted by the respondents, the Government i.e., 1st the petitioner appointed one Sri Ch.Koteswara Rao, I.P.S. as enquiry officer. After conducting detailed enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 04.05.2000 holding that charge No.3 against the then Superintendent of Police Mr. Madanlal and charge Nos.1 and 3 against Sri R.P. Raju Additional Superintendent of 3. Police are proved and none of the charges against any of the respondents are proved. On receipt of the report, the 1st petitioner issued G.O.Rt.No.312, dated 28.02.2003 directing further enquiry. It was opined that some important aspects relating to the matter were not taken into account by the enquiry officer. One Mr. A.K. Srivasthava, I.P.S. was appointed as enquiry officer. However at a later stage, in the place of A.K. Srivasthava, Smt. Chandana Khan, I.A.S. was appointed as enquiry officer. A report was submitted on 19.12.2007 holding that all the charges against all the respondents herein are proved. Based upon that, the 1st petitioner intended to impose the punishment upon the respondents. Since all of them have retired from service, it was proposed to recover the amounts shown against their names and cut in a fraction of their pension. Challenging the show case notices as well as the enquiry report, the respondents filed the Original Applications before the Tribunal. Through common order, dated 29.02.2012, the Tribunal allowed the O.As. Since all of them have retired from service, it was proposed to recover the amounts shown against their names and cut in a fraction of their pension. Challenging the show case notices as well as the enquiry report, the respondents filed the Original Applications before the Tribunal. Through common order, dated 29.02.2012, the Tribunal allowed the O.As. and set aside the report of the enquiry officer as well as the show cause memos. Hence, these writ petitions. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that there was no basis for the Tribunal to interfere with the report of the enquiry officer or show cause memos. He submits that it is only when a final order imposing any punishment is passed that the respondents could have approached the Tribunal. On merits, learned counsel submits that it is competent for the petitioners to direct “‘further enquiry’” in exercise of power under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’) and that G.O.Rt.No.312, dated 28.02.2002, which was issued in this behalf was not challenged by the respondents. He submits that the enquiry officer, who submitted the report on 19.12.2007, has assigned cogent reasons in support of the conclusions reached by her. Sri M.Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the very issuance of G.O.Rt.No.312, dated 28.02.2002 was opposed to the Rules, apart from being illegal and arbitrary. He contends that if any defect or lacuna in the first report, dated 04.05.2000, was found by the 1st petitioner, it ought to have required the same enquiry officer to conduct further enquiry and instead, a new enquiry officer altogether was appointed. He also contends that after G.O.Rt.No.312 was issued, no evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced and curiously enough, through an observation of one line, the enquiry officer has held that all the charges are proved, that too mostly on the basis of the enquiry report, dated 04.05.2000. Learned counsel submits that there are patent errors in the whole exercise and the Tribunal has taken correct and proper view of the matter. He further submits is that the vehicles are hired under the specific orders of the Unit Head viz., Superintendent of Police, and without taking any steps against him, the petitioners are harassing the respondents for the past two decades. 5. He further submits is that the vehicles are hired under the specific orders of the Unit Head viz., Superintendent of Police, and without taking any steps against him, the petitioners are harassing the respondents for the past two decades. 5. The alleged irregularities in the context of hiring of private vehicles for election duty have taken place way back in the year 1994. It took nearly three years for the A.C.B. to submit report, pointing out the irregularities. The principal authority to hire and arrange the vehicles is the Superintendent of Police. The record discloses that no action was taken against the then Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police. The petitioners concentrated only on the officers, who served as Inspectors of Police at the relevant point of time. 6. Articles of charges were framed in the year 1999 and Sri Ch.Koteswara Rao, I.P.S. was appointed as enquiry officer. Three charges each were framed. The gist of the charges against the respondents is that (a) they have hired excess number of private vehicles than were required; (b) they aided and assisted the Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police in paying less amount to the owners of the hired vehicles; and (c) they failed to account for different amounts in all and to submit the acquaintance rolls. 7. The enquiry officer discussed the matter at length in his detailed report running into 52 closely printed pages and held that none of the charges framed against the respondents herein are proved. He has also opined that it was the basic duty of the Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police to ensure that the required number of vehicles were hired and proper hire charges are paid. The Government took two years to express its reaction to the report. It was only on 28.02.2002 that it issued G.O.Rt.No.312, directing “further enquiry”. 8. It is no doubt true that the 1st petitioner is empowered to direct “further enquiry” under Rule 21 of the Rules, if it finds any serious lapse in the report submitted by the enquiry officer. Rule 21(1) of the Rules reads: Rule 21. It was only on 28.02.2002 that it issued G.O.Rt.No.312, directing “further enquiry”. 8. It is no doubt true that the 1st petitioner is empowered to direct “further enquiry” under Rule 21 of the Rules, if it finds any serious lapse in the report submitted by the enquiry officer. Rule 21(1) of the Rules reads: Rule 21. Action on the inquiry report:- (1)The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 20 as far as many be. 9. However, a subtle distinction between differing with the findings on the one hand and expression of dissatisfaction over the report is required to be maintained. In the former case, the report would be complete in all aspects, but the disciplinary authority is not in agreement with the findings. In such a case, the disciplinary authority can accept the findings or issue a show cause notice to the delinquent official to explain as to why a different view on the findings of the enquiry officer exonerating the officer be not taken. In the latter, however, the concentration is not on the findings. It is about the very purport of the report. The disciplinary authority must feel that certain important aspects were not taken note of by the enquiry officer. Once that opinion is formed, the step, which is required to be taken, is that the same enquiry officer must be required to conduct further enquiry. This obviously means examination of further witnesses or placing of further material by the Presenting Officer. In such an exercise, the delinquent official cannot be expected to take any steps from his side. In the instant case, however, the 1st petitioner has chosen to appoint another enquiry officer and indirectly has set aside the report, dated 04.05.2000. Assuming that the non-conformity with the Rule in this behalf be ignored, the new enquiry officer was required to insist the Presenting Officer to place additional material in the form of oral or documentary evidence. The record however discloses that the Presenting Officer has reported that he has nothing more to add. 10. Assuming that the non-conformity with the Rule in this behalf be ignored, the new enquiry officer was required to insist the Presenting Officer to place additional material in the form of oral or documentary evidence. The record however discloses that the Presenting Officer has reported that he has nothing more to add. 10. In the absence of any further enquiry, or additional material, the scope and purport of the enquiry virtually remained the same. It must be taken note of that the role assigned to the new enquiry officer was not to express his or her own opinion on the basis of the material, which is already on record. If that were to be so, successive enquiry officers can be appointed, till a view that is to the liking of the disciplinary authority is procured, on the basis of the same material on record. That never is the scope of the disciplinary proceedings. 11. The perfunctory manner, in which the newly appointed enquiry officer conducted the proceedings, is evident from the perusal of the brief report submitted by her. The report runs into 5 pages and out of it, 4½ pages are devoted to take note of the facts and contentions of the respective parties. The fact that no additional material was placed before her is evident from the following statement at page No.1: “The presenting officer did not choose to examine any further witnesses as she felt that there is sufficient material placed to substantiate the charges against the C.Os.” 12. The only additional material was in the form of examination of D.Ws.2 and 3 and further cross-examination of D.Ws.9 and 10. This by no stretch of imagination can strengthen the case of the Department. The analysis of the enquiry officer reads: “On the basis of the written argument of the P.O and defence argument of the C.Os and the analysis of the P.O, taking into account the depositions of the witnesses (especially DWs), it is apparent that the irregularity regarding hiring of vehicles during General Election 1994 cannot be committed by a single officer. The analysis of the enquiry officer reads: “On the basis of the written argument of the P.O and defence argument of the C.Os and the analysis of the P.O, taking into account the depositions of the witnesses (especially DWs), it is apparent that the irregularity regarding hiring of vehicles during General Election 1994 cannot be committed by a single officer. From the facts discussed so far, I am of the opinion that there was an understanding among all the police officers from the S.P. down to the inspectors for hiring excess vehicles, boosting of the expenditure, non payment of proper hire charges to many of the vehicles, taking 2 wheelers in many cases and showing them as 4 wheelers etc. It is interesting to note the contents of the letter of the C.O-1 to Honourable Minister for Home (Copy submitted) to his inquiring authority where he has alleged that the S.P. himself wanted the inspectors of police to divert specified amounts to him from the allocated funds for election under each one of them and that the inspectors also confided to the Addl. S.P. and expressed their difficulties. Therefore as it looks, the Addl. S.P. and his team had to take recourse to bogus expenditure in many cases to cover up the situation. The inquiry against the S.P. is not before this inquiry authority, the inquiry is confined to the Addl. S.P. i.e., C.O.-1 and other C.Os. On the basis of the evidence and earlier inquiry report of Mr. Koteswara Rao, the then Commissioner of Inquiries, I find that the present P.O. has been able to prove the charges against all the C.Os.” 13. The findings recorded by her against the Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of Police and 7 inspectors is contained in one sentence, which reads: “Finally, I came to the conclusion that all the charges against all the C.Os are proved” 14. It is rather curious that the enquiry officer has not only taken into account the evidence, which is already on record, but also the report of the earlier enquiry officer, dated 04.05.2000. The whole exercise undertaken by her does not at all fit into the scheme of Rule 21 of the Rules. It is rather curious that the enquiry officer has not only taken into account the evidence, which is already on record, but also the report of the earlier enquiry officer, dated 04.05.2000. The whole exercise undertaken by her does not at all fit into the scheme of Rule 21 of the Rules. On the other hand, we find that the report, dated 04.05.2000 has dealt with each and every fact of the allegations, defences, evidence, analysed them in proper perspective and recorded findings chargewise against each and every officer. It is difficult to imagine that the perfunctory, non-serious and abstract observations of the second enquiry officer can be accorded primacy or preference, over a well-considered report, dated 04.05.2000. The Tribunal has taken correct view of the matter and we are not inclined to entertain the writ petitions. 15. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 16. The miscellaneous petitions filed in these writ petitions shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.