Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 138 (AP)

Kesineni Vijaya Kumar v. State Of A. P.

2020-02-19

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S.Somayajulu, J. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 06.03.2018 by which punishment of stoppage of one increment was imposed upon the petitioner. 2. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for Endowments Department appearing for the respondents. 3. The essential grievance of the petitioner in this case is that punishment has been imposed on him without following due process of law or the rules of natural justice. It is his contention that the punishment must be imposed by the 3rd respondent who does not have the necessary power or authority. He also contends that the explanation that is submitted by him to the charges was also not considered. He also points out that a "compact disk" which contains certain recording was relied upon by the Enquiry Officer. It is his contention that a copy of the same is also not given to him. He points out that a reading of enquiry report dated 06.03.2018 clearly states that it could not be decided if the delinquent has taken bribe or not. Therefore, he states that the imposition of punishment is not correct. He also states that the Enquiry Officer did not actually pass a reasoned order. It is his contention that before imposing punishment, the Disciplinary Authority should have applied their mind and imposed the punishment. 4. In reply to this, learned standing counsel for the Endowments Department argues that rules of natural justice were scrupulously followed. It is also argued that the preponderance of probability is the standard before the Enquiry Officer and proof beyond all reasonable doubt is not called for. He also questions the delay in the filing of the writ petition. It is his contention that the punishment imposed is only a minor punishment which clearly indicates that the Disciplinary Authority considered the matter in its proper perspective and came to the conclusion that the delinquent is guilty. Therefore, he argues that this is a fit case to dismiss the writ petition. Even in the alternative, he argues that without prejudice to any of his allegations by relying upon Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., v. Mahesh Dahiya, 2017 1 SCC 768 that if there is a failure of the rules of natural justice, the entire proceedings need not be set aside. Even in the alternative, he argues that without prejudice to any of his allegations by relying upon Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., v. Mahesh Dahiya, 2017 1 SCC 768 that if there is a failure of the rules of natural justice, the entire proceedings need not be set aside. He argues that from the stage alleged failure is noticed, the enquiry can be directed to proceed further. This contention is urged without prejudice to any of his earlier arguments based upon the counter affidavit that is filed. 5. After hearing both the learned counsel and considering the material, this Court notices that there is no dispute strictly about the facts as they are set out an Enquiry Officer was appointed, a show cause notice was given; a reply was also given to the show cause notice. The individuals who were charged including the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer. What is recorded by him is also mentioned in the report of the Enquiry Officer. However, what is clearly apparent is that the complainant has submitted a recorded CD which was heard by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer could not decide whether the bribe was taken or not. This is recorded in the last page of the enquiry report. Thereafter, it appears from a reading of the impugned order that the punishment was directly imposed. It is not mentioned in the impugned order that the enquiry report was furnished and comments were invited from the petitioner. This is clear from a reading of the report itself. 6. In addition, it is also apparent that the disciplinary authority did not really give reasons why the punishment had to be imposed. Reasons if furnished would indicate the manner in which the conclusion was reached. The link between the facts/submissions and the conclusions are the reasons. The same are missing in the impugned proceedings. The case law on the subject of reasons does not require any repetition. 7. This Court is of the opinion that as there is a failure noticed, after the Enquiry Officer's report and before the order of punishment, the relief should be moulded accordingly. The same are missing in the impugned proceedings. The case law on the subject of reasons does not require any repetition. 7. This Court is of the opinion that as there is a failure noticed, after the Enquiry Officer's report and before the order of punishment, the relief should be moulded accordingly. Therefore, in line with the judgment reported in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd.,'s case (supra) and other case law on the subject, only the order of punishment is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to serve the enquiry report along with all the documents evidence referred therein to the petitioner and invite his comments to the same within a strict time frame. Thereafter, the Authority is directed to dispose of the case by a reasoned order discussing the issues raised. 8. The entire procedure should be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to follow the time frame and not delay the matter. 9. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.