Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1483 (AP)

T. Venkataramana v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-18

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2024
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “......to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st respondent in issuing the G.O.Rt. No. 22, Revenue (Vigilance-III) Department, dated 17.01.2022 wherein imposed a penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner discriminately in a common charge along with others as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, discriminatory and also violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same by further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits including seniority, monitory etc., and pass such other orders....” 2. Heard Mr. V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-I for the 1st respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he was initially appointed as Village Revenue Assistant in the year 1995 and later promoted as Village Revenue Officer in the year 2012. While he was working as Village Revenue Officer, Gundlur-II Cluster, Kalikiri Mandal, he was placed under suspension along with others vide proceedings dated 27.06.2016 by the 3rd respondent on the ground that “for dereliction of duties in recommending for digitally signing of Government land to an extent of Ac. 15.00 cents in Sy. No. 2151, which is classified as Vagu Poramboke of B. Kothakota Village and Mandal as patta lands in the Webland.” The 3rd respondent issued charge memo, for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The Sub Collector, Madanapalle, who conducted common enquiry and submitted a report to the 3rd respondent on 31.07.2019 stating that the charge is held proved. The petitioner reinstated into service. Basing on the report, the 1st respondent has issued a Memo dated 26.02.2020 directing the charged officers to submit their explanation if any, for which the petitioner has submitted explanation on 13.07.2020 to the 1st respondent, which is kept pending. Therefore, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 28842 of 2021 and this Court directed the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within six weeks. On receipt of the copy of the order of this Court, the 1st respondent issued impugned order dated 17.01.2022 imposed penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. On receipt of the copy of the order of this Court, the 1st respondent issued impugned order dated 17.01.2022 imposed penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed. 4. Per contra, 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material allegations made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has brought to the notice of the Government that 15.00 acres out of 30.00 acres of Government Land classified as Vagu Poramboke of B. Kothakota Village and Mandal, Chittoor District has been updated as Patta Land in the webland by the Village Revenue Officer and the same has been approved by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar. Thereby a Charge Memo dated 23.07.2016 was issued to the petitioner and others to submit explanation and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry and found that the petitioner failed to monitor the entry of the land particulars in the web land and that the charge against the charged officer/ petitioner is held proved. After careful examination of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and further explanation of the petitioner, the Government have observed that the petitioner has recommended for issue of Pattadar Pass Book to take fake DKT pattas issued in favour of three persons in respect of the subject lands. Therefore taking into consideration of the advice of APPSC, Government has issued orders vide G.O.Rt. No. 22, Dated 17.01.2022 imposing a penalty of “dismissal from service” against the petitioner in terms of Rule 9 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Therefore, the respondents have followed due procedure, while imposing the punishment on the petitioner. Hence, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record. 6. The petitioner has placed under suspension on the allegation of dereliction in discharging duties and failed to monitor the entry of the land particulars in respect of Sy. No. 2151 of B. Kothakota Mandal, into the Webland. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report that the charge against the petitioner is held proved. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted his explanation, but the enquiry officer conducted enquiry on par with other charged officers and shown discrimination while imposing punishment against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report that the charge against the petitioner is held proved. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner submitted his explanation, but the enquiry officer conducted enquiry on par with other charged officers and shown discrimination while imposing punishment against the petitioner. It is further contention of the petitioner is that the charge against the petitioner is dereliction of duties in recommending for digitally signing of Government Land, the enquiry report states that the charge against the charged officer is held proved, but however certain points to be considered at this juncture that the physical features of the land was illegally assigned was not disrobed and it is intact as per the report of the Tahsildar dated 19.02.2019 and the petitioner being a Village Revenue Assistant promote, did not have computer knowledge and there is no loss caused to the government and the mistake is rectified. Further contended that he is a lower grade employee, if at all he committed any mistake, he may not penalized by imposing a harsh penalty of dismissal from service. The punishment imposed against the petitioner cannot commensurate with the charge levelled against him, which is nothing but disproportionate punishment to the proved charge. Therefore, the impugned dismissal order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. 7. In support of his contention, leaned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in D. Vittal v. Registrar (Administration), High Court of A.P. 2002 (5) ALT 58 (DB), wherein it was held as follows: “12. The ground of arbitrariness available to a litigant flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution is available to the petitioner-delinquent officer in the instant case to assail the punishment imposed on him as a disciplinary measure. The doctrine of proportionality means that whenever the Legislature or administrative action granted an area of discretion or range of choices, exercise, of such discretion or opting choices should be such that the exercise of such discretion or choices should not hurt the rights of the affected interests excessively, that is to say, more than what is necessary in the assessment of an ordinary prudent man. In Ranjit Thakur’s case (supra), the Supreme Court referred to “proportionality” in the quantum of punishment and held that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. In Ranjit Thakur’s case (supra), the Supreme Court referred to “proportionality” in the quantum of punishment and held that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. Similarly, in B.C. Chaturvedi’s case (supra), the Supreme Court opined that the Court would not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless the punishment awarded is one which shocks the conscience of the Court. Therefore, it is permissible for the Court to step in and interfere with the quantum of punishment only where the Court is of the opinion that a case is made out to apply the doctrine of proportionality and/or where the Court thinks that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved or where the punishment imposed on the delinquent officer shocks the conscience of the Court. The question is whether these conditions exist in the present case or not.” 8. This Court in the decision cited supra, observed the quantum of punishment and held that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved and the impugned punishment order of removal from service is set aside. Further he relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Shri Bhagwan Lal Arya v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Others, 2004 (4) SCC 560 wherein it was held as follows: “the punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant is not only highly excessive and disproportionate, but is also one which was not permissible to be imposed as per the Service Rules.” .....14. Thus, the present one is a case wherein we are satisfied that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant is not only highly excessive and disproportionate but is also one which was not permissible to be imposed as per the Service Rules. Ordinarily we would have set aside the punishment and sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority for passing the order of punishment afresh in accordance with law and consistently with the principles laid down in the judgment. However, that would further lengthen the life of litigation. Ordinarily we would have set aside the punishment and sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority for passing the order of punishment afresh in accordance with law and consistently with the principles laid down in the judgment. However, that would further lengthen the life of litigation. In view of the time already lost, we deem it proper to set aside the punishment of removal from service and instead direct the appellant to be reinstated in service subject to the condition that the period during which the appellant remained absent from duty and the period calculated up to the date on which the appellant reports back to duty pursuant to this judgment shall not be counted as a period spent on duty. The appellant shall not be entitled to any service benefits for this period. Looking at the nature of partial relief allowed hereby to the appellant, it is now not necessary to pass any order of punishment in the departmental proceedings in lieu of the punishment of removal from service which has been set aside. The appellant must report on duty within a period of six weeks from today to take benefit of this judgment.” 9. No doubt, it appears in the instant case that the impugned punishment awarded by the 1st respondent is highly disproportionate and discriminatory and it is not as per the Service Rules in the light of the decisions cited supra. It is noted that the 1st respondent awarded harsh punishment imposed on the petitioner without concluding the enquiry pending against the petitioner. It appears that the 1st respondent has not followed due procedure as contemplated under law, except relying on the report of the enquiry officer the 1st respondent has issued impugned termination proceedings against the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary. It is further points out that the petitioner is a small employee than other charged officers, whereas, reduction of pay to five lower stages imposed on the Tahsildar and withhold 15% in monthly pension permanently against the Mandal Revenue Inspector, but in the case of the petitioner, imposed penalty of dismissal from service, though he is working under other charged officers, which is illegal and arbitrary action taken against the petitioner is concerned. 10. 10. It is necessarily to be noted that the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 28842 of 2021 and this Court directed the respondents on 09.12.2021 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 23.07.2016 within six (06) weeks. Instead of concluding enquiry proceedings, the 1st respondent after receipt of the copy of the order of this Court have issued impugned order dated 17.01.2022, without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioner and discriminately imposed punishment. It is clearly shows that higher officers got lessor punishment than the lower employee i.e. petitioner. 11. It is very clear that the respondents have not followed due procedure in taking action against the petitioner and ignored the explanation submitted by the petitioner in the year 2016. The respondents have directly removed the petitioner from the duties without conducting proper enquiry, vitiates clear irregularity and negligence on the part of the respondents in discharging their duties and straight away terminated the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary. 12. In Whrilpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 wherein it was held as follows: “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions once of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been field for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.....” 13. In the light of facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the counsel, this Court is inclined to remand back the matter to the 1st respondent with a direction to re-examine the case of the petitioner, pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 23.07.2016, after affording ample opportunity of hearing of the petitioner with documentary evidence submitted by him and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the impugned order vide G.O.Rt. No. 22, dated 17.01.2022 issued by the 1st respondent is hereby aside as it is declared as illegal and arbitrary. 14. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.