Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1073 (AP)

Gunupudi Ramu v. Superintending Engineer

2022-10-19

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2022
ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…to grant appropriate relief more in the nature of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring Memo No SE/IC/Eluru/ABfEC 1/EFCL/3C, dated 11.04.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent Memo No. DEE/ISD/Undi/E/1:42M, dated 13.04.2022 issued by the 4th Respondent and consequential proceedings No. Rc/ENC/E2/22041668/2022, dated 28.04.2022 issued by the 2nd Respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory malafide and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from attaching stigma to the Petitioner and set aside the same and issue consequential directions directing the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue as Assistant Executive Engineer Irrigation Section Undi Office of the Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub Division, Undi, West Godavari District and pass such other order or orders…….” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has transferred and posted him as Assistant Executive Engineer, Irrigation Section, Undi, and joined on 27.07.2019. While the petitioner was working in that post, a news item was published on 17.03.2022 against the petitioner in Andhra Jyothi alleging that he made certain adverse comments against the farmers without asking him to release irrigation water. Providing irrigation water to the farmers is the main duty of the Village Panchayat Secretary, Cherukuwada, therefore, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Village Panchayat Secretary on 17.03.2022 requesting him to release water to the farmers. Subsequently, the 1st respondent, vide Memo dated 19.03.2022 requested the Executive Engineer to submit a detailed report with regard to the news item published in the Andhra Jyothi. Meanwhile, the petitioner has explained to the concerned authorities about the farmers’ agitation demanding to provide irrigation water and stated that there is no any fault on his part as far as the issue is concerned. However, the 1st respondent has issued proceedings dated 25.03.2022 calling explanation on the same subject stating that the 3rd respondent submitted enquiry report against the petitioner alleging that duties assigned to him as a Section Officer in the Mandal are not being discharged properly and the lethargic attitude towards discharging duties attracts the initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner as per the CCA Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 30.03.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 30.03.2022. Being not satisfied with the same, the 1st respondent issued the impugned memo dated 11.04.2022 surrendering the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent who is supposed to reject the order of surrender issued by the 1st respondent, mechanically without any application of mind, issued the further impugned proceedings dated 28.04.2022 issuing reposting order, even though the 1st respondent is not having any authority and jurisdiction to issue the impugned order of surrender dated 11.04.2022. Questioning the impugned orders, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the AEE post is Section level field officer post in Water Resources Department. The main duty of the AEE is providing water to the ayacut under his jurisdiction duly monitoring the water regulation with his subordinate staff. So, he is the competent authority to release the water in canals/channels as per the directions/instructions of the higher authorities from time to time. Hence the contention of the petitioner to address letter to Panchayat Secretary for releasing water is not acceptable. Based on the enquiry report submitted by the E.E himself, the Superintending Engineer has surrendered the services of the petitioner to the Head of the Department pending initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner instead of issuing suspension orders to the petitioner as per Rule 13 point 4(i) of CCA Rules and the G.O. The Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer are competent to take disciplinary action against the AEE for his dereliction of duties. Instead of issuing suspension orders as per Rule 13 point 4(i) of CCA Rules, the Superintending Engineer has only surrendered the services of the AEE to the Engineer-in-Chief, Administration. It is further stated that the action taken by the 1st respondent, in surrendering the services of the AEE based on the instructions of District Magistrate and Collector and based on the enquiry report of the Executive Engineer, the 3rd respondent, and upon his surrender to the 2nd respondent duly posting the petitioner to Section No.2 Tadepalligudem of Sub Division No.3, Tadepalligudem of Division No.1, Kovvur under the control of PIRMC Circle, Eluru is appropriate as per Rule 13 point 4(i) of CCA Rules. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Heard Mr. P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court in a catena of decisions categorically held that any competent authority other than the appointing authority and disciplinary authority is not having any authority and power to issue orders of surrender. In fact, there is no provision under any Rules exercising power to surrender any employee in as much as once the competent authority transfers and posts an employee in a particular post the said competent and appointing authority alone is competent to transfer, disrupt an employee from that post while exercising powers vested with the appointing authority. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and hence learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders as stated supra. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that the action taken by the Superintending Engineer in surrendering the services of the petitioner is proper and as per CCA Rule 13, 4(i) which states that the Superintending Engineer as well as Executive Engineer are competent to take disciplinary action against the AEE for his dereliction of duties. He further submits that the Government have issued amendment vide G.O.Ms.No.353 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 18.11.2003 under Rule 11, sub-Rule 20(i), the penalty of stoppage of Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect on Assistant Executive Engineer and Deputy Executive Engineer (Irrigation). He further submits that the rejection of order of surrender does not arise as the Superintending Engineer has surrendered the services of the petitioner as per the instructions of District Magistrate and Collector, Eluru and based on the enquiry conducted by the E.E, Irrigation sub-Division, Undi. Hence, the petitioner was transferred to nearest place at Tadepalligudem by the 2nd respondent to safeguard the public interest. 7. Hence, the petitioner was transferred to nearest place at Tadepalligudem by the 2nd respondent to safeguard the public interest. 7. On hearing this Court observed that, admittedly the 1st respondent issued a memo calling explanation to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and therefore in the event of not satisfying his explanation by the 1st respondent, it is always open to the 1st respondent to step into the 2nd respondent to initiate any departmental proceedings against the petitioner in as much as the 1st respondent is the competent authority either to effect any transfer or initiate any departmental proceedings as the 2nd respondent is the appointing authority and disciplinary authority. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that, as per Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 : (1) Every Government employee shall be devoted to his duty and shall maintain absolute integrity, discipline, impartiality and a sense of propriety; (2) No Government employee shall behave in a manner which is unbecoming such employee or derogatory to the prestige of Government. (3) No Government employee shall act in a manner which will place his official position under any kind of embarrassment. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner has repeatedly disobeyed the instructions of his higher authorities resulting in violation of Rule 3 of Conduct Rules, 1964. In order to take further course of action as per the instructions of the District Magistrate & Collector, Eluru to safeguard and for smooth functioning of Administration, based on the enquiry report submitted by the Executive Engineer himself, the Superintending Engineer has surrendered the services of the petitioner to the Head of the Department pending initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner instead of issuing suspension order to the petitioner as per Rule 13, 4(i) of CCA Rules. 9. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition and devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.