Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 393 (AP)

N. Vyduram v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-05-27

A.V.SESHA SAI, B.KRISHNA MOHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT A.V.Sesha Sai, J. - Applicant in Original Application No.6047 of 2015, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity, 'Tribunal'), is the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The present Writ Petition challenges the order, dated 26.10.2018, passed in the said Original Application. By way of the said order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. 3. Consequent upon a raid, conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities, on 20.04.2005, when the applicant-petitioner herein was working as a Joint Sub Registrar-I at Nellore, the State Government-first respondent herein issued G.O.Ms.No.745, Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department, dated 02.06.2007, framing as many as 7 charges against the applicant-petitioner herein. In response to the same, applicant-petitioner herein submitted her written statement of defence. Subsequently, vide G.O.Rt.No.1936, Revenue (Vig.VI) Department, dated 15.10.2008, the State Government-first respondent herein appointed an Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, vide G.O.Rt.No.1771, Revenue (Vig.VI) Department, dated 19.12.2009, the State Government-first respondent herein appointed a Presenting Officer. The Enquiring authority, after holding enquiry against 20 employees, including the petitioner herein, submitted a report on 12.01.2011. Thereafter, vide Memo No.17783/ Vig.VI(1)/ 2005-12, dated 12.03.2012, while communicating a copy of the Enquiry Report, the State Government-first respondent herein called upon the applicant-petitioner herein to submit her representation, if any, on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and called upon her to show cause as to why further action should not be taken against her under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. In response to the same, petitioner herein submitted her written representation to the State Government-first respondent herein on 12.05.2012. Since the applicant-petitioner herein retired from service on 30.04.2005, the State Government-first respondent herein issued Memo No.17783/Vig.VI(1)/2005-21, dated 27.03.2014, provisionally deciding to impose penalty of 20% cut in pension permanently, under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, and asked the petitioner herein to submit her explanation. In response to the same, petitioner herein submitted a representation, as sought in the Memo, dated 27.03.2014, on 12.05.2014. Subsequently, the State Government-first respondent herein addressed a letter, dated 17.10.2014, to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) for necessary approval, and the APPSC granted approval on 02.07.2015. In response to the same, petitioner herein submitted a representation, as sought in the Memo, dated 27.03.2014, on 12.05.2014. Subsequently, the State Government-first respondent herein addressed a letter, dated 17.10.2014, to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) for necessary approval, and the APPSC granted approval on 02.07.2015. Eventually, the State Government-first respondent herein passed an order, vide G.O.Rt.No.672, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 16.07.2015, imposing penalty of 20% cut in pension permanently against the petitioner herein. Challenging the validity and legal sustainability of the said order petitioner herein, by invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the A.P.Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, filed O.A.No.6047 of 2018 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by way of the order impugned in the present Writ Petition, dismissed the said Original Application upholding the order of penalty passed by the State Government-first respondent herein. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 4. Heard Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available on record. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, is highly erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. It is further contended that the order of punishment is completely bereft of any reasons and on the sole ground the Tribunal ought to have set aside the order of punishment. It is further contended by the learned counsel that it is obligatory and mandatory on the part of the disciplinary authority to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner herein, in response to the show cause notice, and nonconsideration of the contents of the explanation is fatal and, on the solitary ground, the Tribunal ought to have set aside the order of penalty passed by the State Government-first respondent herein. 6. On the contrary, it is strenuously contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned order and, in the absence of the same, the order of the Tribunal, upholding the order of penalty passed by the State Government-first respondent herein, cannot be faulted. 6. On the contrary, it is strenuously contended by the learned Government Pleader that there is no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned order and, in the absence of the same, the order of the Tribunal, upholding the order of penalty passed by the State Government-first respondent herein, cannot be faulted. It is further submitted, in elaboration, that since the Tribunal meticulously and elaborately considered all the issues raised by the petitioner herein, no interference of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is warranted. 7. In the light of the above contentions, now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court, in the present Writ Petition, is: "Whether the order passed by the Tribunal, upholding the order of penalty passed by the State Government-first respondent herein, is sustainable and tenable or whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?" 8. It is absolutely not in controversy that after retirement of the petitioner herein, on 30.04.2005, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by way of framing charges vide G.O.Ms.No.745, Revenue (Vigilance-VI) Department, dated 02.06.2007, and, in response to the same, petitioner herein submitted her explanation denying the charges. Subsequently, the State Government-first respondent herein appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner herein and 19 others. The Enquiry Officer, after holding enquiry, submitted a report in the year, 2011. When the petitioner herein was supplied with a copy of the Enquiry Report, she submitted her written representation on 12.05.2012. On 27.03.2014, the State Government-first respondent herein, while provisionally proposing to impose penalty of 20% cut in pension permanently, asked the petitioner herein to submit her representation. In response to the same, on 12.05.2014, an elaborate and extensive explanation/representation was submitted, charge-wise, by the petitioner herein. Copy of the same is also filed along with present Writ Petition as material paper. After receipt of the said explanation, the State Government-first respondent herein issued the order of penalty vide G.O.Rt.No.672, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 16.07.2015. By way of the said order, the State Government-first respondent herein imposed penalty of 20% cut in pension permanently against the petitioner herein. 9. After receipt of the said explanation, the State Government-first respondent herein issued the order of penalty vide G.O.Rt.No.672, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 16.07.2015. By way of the said order, the State Government-first respondent herein imposed penalty of 20% cut in pension permanently against the petitioner herein. 9. According to Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, which deals with right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension, the departmental proceedings, if any, instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment: (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the State Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service. 10. In the instant case, admittedly, petitioner herein retired from service on 30.04.2005 and the charge memo was issued on 02.06.2007. Admittedly, in response to the earlier show cause notice, dated 12.03.2012, and subsequent show cause notice dated 27.03.2014, petitioner herein submitted elaborate representations/explanations, charge-wise. A perusal of the order of penalty passed by the State Government-first respondent herein, vide G.O.Rt.No.672, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 16.07.2015, in clear and vivid terms, discloses that the State Government-first respondent herein, except stating that the contentions put forth by the petitioner herein in the subsequent explanation are similar to the earlier explanation, did not make any endeavour to consider the contents of the same. Having issued a show cause notice, having called for explanation and having acknowledged the same, this Court absolutely does not find any justification on the part of the State Governmentfirst respondent herein in not considering various contentions raised by the petitioner herein in the said explanations/ representations. In the considered opinion of this Court, the manner in which the State Government-first respondent herein passed the impugned order in the Original Application, is in patent violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, besides being opposed to the mandatory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Coming to the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, it is to be noted that the finding of the Tribunal, that when the Government accepted the enquiry report the question of the Government again reiterating the reasons given by the Enquiring Authority would not arise, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be sustained. Having regard to the reasons indicated supra, the order impugned in the Original Application cannot be sustained. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 26.10.2018, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Original Application No.6047 of 2015, and consequently, the order passed by the State Government-first respondent herein in G.O.Rt.No.672, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 16.07.2015, is set aside. The matter is remanded to the State Government-first respondent herein for consideration of the issue afresh and passing appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, after considering the explanations/ representations submitted by the petitioner herein. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.