Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 536 (AP)

P. Yesu Das v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2021-08-11

A.V.SESHA SAI

body2021
JUDGMENT In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the order of the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.233, Industries and Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 01.12.2020. 2. By way of the order under challenge, the State Government imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect on the petitioner and also ordered recovery of an amount of Rs.13,51,000/-. 3. According to the petitioner herein, he is working as Deputy Director in the District Industries Centre, Eluru, West Godavari District. When the petitioner herein was working as Assistant Director in the Department, the second respondent- Commissioner of Industries vide proceedings No.40/1/ 2004/0358/0358/ID-2, dated 24.09.2007, issued a Charge Memo, which reads as under: “Sri P.Yesudas, Asst.Director, O/o the G.M., DIC., Nellore (the then IPO, Tirupathi, O/o the G.M., DIC, Chittoor District) is hereby informed that it is proposed to take action against him under Rule-20 (3) of the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. A statement of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be taken against him is enclosed. 2. Sri P.Yesudas, Asst.Director, O/o the G.M.,DIC., Nellore (the then IPO, , Tirupathi, O/o the G.M., DIC, Chittoor District) is hereby given an opportunity to make such representation, as he may wish to make against the proposed. 3. If Sri P.Yesudas fails to submit his representation within ten days, of the receipt of this Memorandum, it will be presumed that he has no representation to make and order will be liable to be passed against Sri P.Yesudas, Asst.Director, O/o the G.M.,DIC., Nellore (the then IPO, , Tirupathi, O/o the G.M., DIC, Chittoor District) ex parte. 4. The receipt of this Memorandum should be acknowledged by Sri P.Yesudas, Asst.Director, O/o the G.M.,DIC., Nellore (the then IPO, , Tirupathi, O/o the G.M., DIC, Chittoor District)”. In response to the said Charge Memo, on 12.10.2007, petitioner herein submitted his explanation. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted a report on 06.08.2013. When a notice was issued to the petitioner, enclosing the Enquiry Report, petitioner herein submitted his explanation/objections to the Enquiry Report on 30.12.2013. Now, eventually, by way of the questioned Governmental Order, the State Government imposed the punishment, as indicated above. 4. Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, 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. Now, eventually, by way of the questioned Governmental Order, the State Government imposed the punishment, as indicated above. 4. Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the questioned order of punishment is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.V.Mahadevan v. Md.T.N.Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 and the judgment of the composite High Court in the case of D.Srinivas v. Govt. of A.P., Transport, Road And Buildings (Vig.I) Department And Others, 2013 (4) ALT 1 . In elaboration, it is further contended by the learned counsel that, without taking into consideration the material available on record, including the explanation offered by the petitioner herein from time to time, first respondent herein inflicted the subject punishment and the said action is a clear contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the contrary, it is strenuously contended by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I that there is absolutely no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and, in the absence of the same, the order impugned is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In elaboration, it is further contended that, having regard to the grievous nature of the charge and having regard to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the impugned punishment is in commensurate with the charge levelled against the petitioner. It is also the submission of the learned Government Pleader that, only after meticulously considering the entire material available on record, first respondent herein passed the impugned order of punishment, as such, the same does not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. It is also the submission of the learned Government Pleader that, only after meticulously considering the entire material available on record, first respondent herein passed the impugned order of punishment, as such, the same does not warrant any interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In the above background, now the issue, which this Court is called upon to answer in the present Writ Petition, is: whether the impugned order of punishment passed by the first respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.233, Industries and Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 01.12.2020, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is sustainable and tenable in the eye of law?. 8. There is absolutely no controversy with regard to the realities, namely framing of charge, filing of explanation, appointment of Enquiry Officer and submission of report by the Enquiry Officer on 06.08.2013. It is also required to be noted that the subject enquiry came to be initiated by issuing a Charge Memo in the year, 2007. It is also not in dispute that, after receipt of the Enquiry Officer’s Report, petitioner herein submitted explanation on 30.12.2013. In fact, a copy of the said explanation is also filed along with the present Writ Petition as material paper. 9. A perusal of the impugned order of punishment, in clear and vivid terms, reveals that, though the first respondent herein referred to all the events including the consent expressed by the APPSC, first respondent herein failed to take into account the contents of the explanation offered by the petitioner on 30.12.2013. In fact, petitioner herein brought to the notice of the respondents various aspects touching the enquiry and, eventually, made a request to exonerate him from the charge framed against him, but the first respondent herein, in the impugned order, did not consider any one of the contents in the explanation, dated 30.12.2013, submitted by the petitioner herein. Having provided opportunity to the petitioner herein, after submission of the Enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer and having acknowledged the explanation offered in response to the same, this Court does not find any justification on the part of the first respondent in not referring to the contents of the explanation, dated 30.12.2013. Having provided opportunity to the petitioner herein, after submission of the Enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer and having acknowledged the explanation offered in response to the same, this Court does not find any justification on the part of the first respondent in not referring to the contents of the explanation, dated 30.12.2013. On the said ground, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot stand for judicial scrutiny and this Court is also of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the first respondent. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the G.O.Rt.No.233 Industries & Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 01.12.2020, issued by the first respondent herein, and the matter is remanded to the State Government- first respondent herein for fresh consideration of the issue after taking into account the explanation offered by the petitioner on 30.12.2013. It is left open to the petitioner herein to submit an additional explanation, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and it is open for him to enclose the copies of the judgments on which the petitioner herein seeks to place reliance in support of his submissions and contentions. It is also made clear that, only after taking into consideration of the entire material available on record, first respondent herein shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.