Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 866 (AP)

Government of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Newton

2013-10-07

CHALLA KODANDA RAM, L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2013
JUDGMENT L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. The first respondent (for short "the respondent") was working as Constable in the A.P. Police Department, in the year 1992. On the basis of a trap arranged against him, by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, in the year 2002. Charge-sheet was issued to the respondent and, in view of the explanation submitted by him, the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. 2. A report was submitted by the said Tribunal holding that the charge is proved. Taking the same into account, an order of punishment was passed on 3.3.2012. The Government in Home Department - the first petitioner herein, issued G.O. Ms. No. 34, dated 17.2.2012, dismissing the respondent from service. Challenging the same, respondent filed OA No. 7986 of 2012. One of the contentions urged by the respondent was that though the disciplinary authority for the post of Constable is Superintendent of Police - third petitioner herein, and the appellate authority is Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIG), the order of punishment was passed by the Government. The O.A. was opposed by the petitioners herein by filing counter-affidavit. The Tribunal allowed the O.A., through its order dated 6.12.2012. The same is challenged here. 3. Heard the learned Advocate General for the petitioners and Sri K. Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent. 4. The principal contention urged by the respondent was that the order of dismissal was passed by the first petitioner, though the appointing authority is the third petitioner and the appellate authority is DIG. This weighed with the Tribunal. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank, AIR 1995 SC 1053 and a recent judgment in Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Prabash Chandra Mirdha, AIR 2002 SC 2250 . 5. It is fairly settled that an appellate authority cannot straight away pass an order of punishment against an employee and it is the prerogative of the appointing authority to take such steps. Had the disciplinary proceedings been initiated against the respondent alone, and the first petitioner has chosen to pass order of punishment, the principle enunciated in the judgments referred to above, would certainly have applied. 6. Had the disciplinary proceedings been initiated against the respondent alone, and the first petitioner has chosen to pass order of punishment, the principle enunciated in the judgments referred to above, would certainly have applied. 6. In the instant case, that complaint that gave rise to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was against the then Inspector of Police, by name R. Narsa Raju, one Constable, by name P. Purnachandra Rao, and the respondent herein. Since officer of the rank of Inspector of Police was involved, the Government has chosen to conduct the proceedings in a comprehensive manner and has invoked its powers under Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short "CCA Rules"). The said Rule empowers the Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings by itself in case more employees or officers are facing the same allegations. Once that provision is invoked, the powers of the disciplinary authority of the employee, irrespective of his rank, stand vested with the Government. 7. This aspect, however, was not taken into account by the Tribunal. We are of the view that the attention of the Tribunal needs to be drawn to that provision. We do not intend to take away the opportunity of the respondent herein, to put forward his contention before the Tribunal, on that aspect. 8. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order in the O.A., is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, duly taking into account the purport of Rule 24 of CCA Rules. The O.A., shall be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.