Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1102 (AP)

G. N. Suresh Reddy v. State Of AP

2022-10-20

G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

body2022
ORDER: Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti and Sri K. Venkat Reddy on behalf of Writ Petitioner; Sri K. Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri M. Vijay Bhaskar, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.6. 2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under : “….to issue any writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in issuing G.O.Rt.No.2044 WATER RESOURCES (SERVICES-I) DEPARTMENT dated 18.10.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, malafides and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass such further or other orders…” 3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that he is appointed on deputation for a period of three years as Executive Engineer, LLC Division, Tungabhadra Board (Andhra Pradesh Quota) and took charge on 19.02.2019. As the period of three years has expired on 18.02.2022, the Government had issued Orders of extension for a period of one year from 23.02.2022 to 22.02.2023, and as such, he is working under the said capacity. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also submitted that on 29.12.2021, the Writ Petitioner was issued Article of Charge (Ex.P.5), and the same is extracted hereunder:- “Annexure-I Draft Article of Charges framed against Sri G.N. Suresh Reddy, the then EE, IB Division Penukonda:- Sri G.N. Suresh Reddy, Executive Engineer has committed dereliction of duties amounting to misconduct in violation of Rule (3) of APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964, as mentioned in the following Article of Charges. Article of Charge I:- That the said Sri G.N. Suresh Reddy while functioning as Executive Engineer, IB Division, Penukonda has proposed and executed protection wall on U/s side edge of D/s berm unnecessarily, even though the road is not running on D/s toe of the bund, but on D/s berm leading to boosting up of estimate for Rs.44.10 Lakhs and causing wasteful expenditure of Rs.30,83,162/- for protection wall which is irregular and violation of Government norms & Neeru- Chettu guidelines in execution of work “Improvements to Mandli M1 tank near Mandli village of Somandepalli Mandal of Ananthapuram (Dist.) (Work No.39)”. Thus, he has committed dereliction of duties amounting to misconduct. Dr . K.S. JAWAHAR REDDY SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ” 4. Thus, he has committed dereliction of duties amounting to misconduct. Dr . K.S. JAWAHAR REDDY SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT ” 4. It is further submitted that by G.O.Rt.No.2044- WATER RESOURCES (SERVICES-I) DEPARTMENT dated 18.10.2022, the Government has posted Respondent No.6 on deputation for a period of one year in the same post, in which the Writ Petitioner was officiating on deputation. The said Proceedings also indicate that the deputation of the Writ Petitioner is cancelled. 5. The Writ Petitioner has also filed the Minutes of the Selection Committee held on 22.09.2022 (Ex.P.2), which indicates that the Government has sought to cancel the deputation of the Writ Petitioner in compliance with certain Rules and Conditions that govern all the Members of the Board of Tungabhadra. The relevant Rules and Conditions as indicated in the Minutes are extracted hereunder:- “c) The tenure of Divisional Officers in the Board shall be for a period of 3 (Three) years. d) The Officials having disciplinary action/Vigilance cases pending against them are not acceptable to the Board. Accordingly, the participating states while posting an official shall furnish to the Board a certificate that no disciplinary cases/vigilance cases are pending against the officer posted. e) On completion of the tenure of an official in the Board, he shall be repatriated back to parent Department of the State. The Parent Department shall also withdraw an official from the Board at any time by providing a suitable substitute. f) Officials posted once to Board and repatriated after completion of tenure are not accepted in the Board second tenure. However officials, whose services have been found satisfactory during the first tenure, shall be considered for a second term after completion of a cooling period of 3 year.” 6. The said Minutes also states that Respondent No.6 has given consent to the Board for the purpose of his appointment in place of the Writ Petitioner. Para (d) which is extracted above as regards Rules and Conditions of the Committee clearly indicate that such of those “Officials having disciplinary action/Vigilance cases pending against them are not acceptable to the Board”. In compliance of this direction, it is also contemplated that the participating States, while posting Officials, shall furnish to the Board a Certificate that no disciplinary cases/vigilance cases are pending against the Officer posted. In compliance of this direction, it is also contemplated that the participating States, while posting Officials, shall furnish to the Board a Certificate that no disciplinary cases/vigilance cases are pending against the Officer posted. Para (e) states that on completion of the tenure, the Officer shall be repatriated back to the parent Department of the State. In this background, the learned Counsel for Writ Petitioner Sri Raja Reddy Koneti has submitted that the Impugned action of the Official Respondents is malafide and irrational and that the services of the Writ Petitioner could not have been cancelled before the completion of the extended term of one year, inasmuch as the extended one-year period would only end by 22.02.2023. 7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also taken the Court through the pleadings showing the various positions of the Writ Petitioner and submitted that the Charge which is issued against the Writ Petitioner on 29.12.2022 is not maintainable inasmuch as the contract work which is the subject matter of the Charge was never handled by the Writ Petitioner. He further submitted that the Writ Petitioner was appointed as Executive Engineer in Penukonda Division, Anantapur on 09.02.2018 and the final bill was only submitted one month after he took charge i.e., the date of the submission of the final bill by the concerned Contractor is on 04.03.2018. 8. Insofar as the issuance of the charge is concerned, it appears that there is some force in the contention of the Writ Petitioner that the contract was even completed on 20.10.2017 and that the Writ Petitioner was appointed as the Executive Engineer in Penukonda Division on 09.02.2018 and one month thereafter (on 04.03.2018) the final bill was submitted by the Contractor. He had drawn the attention of this Court to the Order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.33584 of 2022 dated 17.10.2022, wherein and whereby, having noted the relevant dates and submissions, the Article of Charge dated 29.12.2021 was stayed. 9. Sri K. Bheema Rao, learned Counsel for the Official Respondent Nos.1 to 5, on the contrary, had drawn the attention of this Court to the Rules and Conditions of the Committee and also further submitted that the Respondent No.6 has taken charge on 19.10.2022. 9. Sri K. Bheema Rao, learned Counsel for the Official Respondent Nos.1 to 5, on the contrary, had drawn the attention of this Court to the Rules and Conditions of the Committee and also further submitted that the Respondent No.6 has taken charge on 19.10.2022. However, it is the opinion of this Court that the factum of the Respondent No.6 taking charge may not have any bearing on the present Writ Proceeding, because this Court, in the event that it is found that the Impugned Orders are vitiated as being contrary to law, can restitute the Writ Petitioner. 10. Insofar as the Article of Charge is concerned, it is the opinion of this Court that while actively considering the Article of Charge and after having found prima-facie case in favour of the Writ Petitioner, this Court has granted stay of the enquiry. Relevant portion of the Interim Order dated 17.10.2022 (in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in W.P.No.33584 of 2022) is extracted hereunder: “Having regard to the consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III, this Court prima-facie convinced that the enquiry should not go on basing on irrelevant charges against the petitioner. Hence, there shall be an interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.940, Water Resources (vig.II.(V&E)) Department, dated 29.12.2021 for a period of four (04) weeks.” 11. This Court, after having perused the said Interim Order dated 17.10.2022, is of the opinion that this Interim Order of stay would not enure to the benefit of the Writ Petitioner in the present proceedings, as the cause of action in the present Writ Petition is completely different. In this case, the Writ Petitioner is only seeking relief of being continued in the present post till the completion of his term of another 5 months i.e., upto 22.02.2023. 12. Sri K. Bheema Rao, learned Counsel for the Official Respondents has cited a Judgment of the Apex Court in Kunal Nanda Vs. Union of India and another ( (2000) 5 SCC 362 ) to state that an Officer who is deputed has no vested right to continue in the same position and that the deputationist can always be repatriated at the pleasure of the Government. Para No.6 of the said Judgment of the Apex Court is beneficially reproduced hereunder: “6. On the legal submissions also made there are no merits whatsoever. Para No.6 of the said Judgment of the Apex Court is beneficially reproduced hereunder: “6. On the legal submissions also made there are no merits whatsoever. It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationist for a permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory rule, regulation or order having the force of law, a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption. The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation.” 13. He also cited another Judgment of the Apex Court in Ratilal B. Soni & Ors Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (1990 AIR 1132). The relevant portion of the Judgment is reproduced hereunder: “The appellants being on deputation they could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation-post. We see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court and as such we dismiss the appeal. There shall no order as to costs”. 14. Having heard the learned Counsel and having perused the documents and the facts of the case, this Court notices that the three-year period of deputation commencing from 19.02.2019 has ended on 18.02.2022. In fact, by this date, the Article of Charge was already served upon the Writ Petitioner i.e., on 29.12.2021. Though there was about four days delay in extending the Order of deputation to work as Executive Engineer in Tungabhadra Board, the Government has, by Order dated 23.02.2022 extended the period of deputation for a period of one year i.e., upto 22.02.2023. 15. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the submission of the Writ Petitioner that the cancellation of deputation, under the Impugned Order, as being vitiated by malafides cannot be sustained. 16. 15. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the submission of the Writ Petitioner that the cancellation of deputation, under the Impugned Order, as being vitiated by malafides cannot be sustained. 16. If the intention of the Government in cancelling the deputation of the Writ Petitioner is vitiated by malafides, the Government would not have extended the services of Writ Petitioner for a period of one year in the month of February, 2022 because the Article of Charge was already served on the Writ Petitioner on 29.12.2021 and that the Government would have cited the serving of the Article of Charge as the reason for not extending the period of deputation in favour of the Writ Petitioner for another period of one year. 17. When once this Court is of the opinion that the cancellation of deputation is not vitiated by malafides, as is reflected from the facts of the present case, this Court would not interfere with the Impugned Order. This opinion of the Court is fructified by the ratio of the Apex Court as cited in the Judgments above. 18. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the present Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. It is however clarified that the observations made by this Court are only confined to the present cause relating to the challenge of cancellation of deputation and that it would not have any bearing on the challenge of the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.33584 of 2022 since the cause in that Writ Petition is completely different. No order as to costs. 19. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in terms of this order.