Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 462 (AP)

G. Narayana Reddy v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2025-03-13

K.MANMADHA RAO

body2025
Order : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. The 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 proceedings vide Rev- ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)-COLLKRNL, dt.4-04-2018 on the file of the 3 rd respondent imposing major penalty withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect and proceedings vide CCLA ’ s Ref.No.VBSII(3)/491/2018 dt.19- 07-2019 on the file of the 2 nd respondent rejecting appeal filed by the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Conduct Rules and also against the principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to release increments along with all consequential benefits to the petitioner withdrawn in view of the proceedings….” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined as V.R.O. in the year 2008 and at present working as VRO at Gadigarevula village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool district. While the petitioner was working as VRO at Thamadapalli Cluster, Banaganapalle Mandal, allegation was made against the petitioner that one Putta Balaramudu, S/o. Ramudu, resident of Rallakothuru village of Banaganapalli Mandal committed suicide by self immolation by pouring kerosene infront of Tahsildar office, Banaganapalli on 13.07.2015 at 05:00 P.M., and the petitioner had acted in a lackadaisical manner in resolving the grievance of the said Putta Balaramudu, even though he approached the petitioner very often, which led to agony and forced him to take drastic step of self immolation by pouring kerosene and attempted to suicide in front of Tahsildar office and has done gross negligence in discharging his legitimate duty. Basing on the preliminary enquiry report of the 5 th respondent vide Rc.A/1.Spl/2015, dated 13.07.2015, the 3 rd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No.A4/3111/VRO/2015, dated 14.07.2015 and appointed the 4 th respondent as Enquiry Officer to probe the issue. An enquiry report dated 08.05.2017 has been submitted by the 4 th respondent recommending a disciplinary action is required to be initiated against the petitioner by framing charges and also may be reinstated the petitioner in to duty as he has been under suspension two years and posted him to a distant non-local position pending disciplinary action. After that, the petitioner has been re-instated and joined as VRO, Gadigarevula Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool district. After that, the petitioner has been re-instated and joined as VRO, Gadigarevula Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool district. Basing on the report of the 4 th respondent, the 3 rd respondent vide his file No.Rev- ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)-COLLKRNL, dated 19.10.2017 issued the articles of charges against the petitioner. In response to the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.11.2017 denying the allegations levelled against him. However, the 3 rd respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner ordered a major penalty vide Rev-ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)-COLLKRNL, dated 04.04.2018, withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect as per Rule 9(vi) of A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2 nd respondent. But the 2 nd respondent without considering the factual aspect dismissed the appeal vide CCLA’s Ref.No.VSII(3)/491/2018, dated 19.07.2019, holding that the guilt of the petitioner has been clearly established beyond doubt. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The 3 rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that as per the enquiry officer’s report, the petitioner has been revoked the said order of suspension subject to disciplinary case pending vide Rev-ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)- COLLKRNL, dated 17.06.2017 and further posted as VRO, Gadigarevula Village of Gadivemula Mandal. Thereafter, basing on the 4 th respondent’s report, the article of charges was framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 09.11.2017. After careful examination of the findings of the enquiry officer and explanation of the charged officer, the 3 rd respondent has imposed major penalty by withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect as per Rule 9(vi) of A.P.C.S (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Further, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2 nd respondent and the same was dismissed vide CCLA’s Ref.No.VSII(3)/491/2018, dated 19.07.2019. 4. The reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating that basing on the two reports i.e., preliminary enquiry report of 5 th respondent dated 13.07.2015 and Joint Collector report, Kurnool dated 08.05.2017, the article of charges were framed. But the said two reports were not enclosed to the article of charges or they were marked as exhibits in the enquiry. It is further stated that no regular enquiry was conducted under rule 20 to prove the charges by examining authors of the said two reports to prove the contents of the said reports. But the said two reports were not enclosed to the article of charges or they were marked as exhibits in the enquiry. It is further stated that no regular enquiry was conducted under rule 20 to prove the charges by examining authors of the said two reports to prove the contents of the said reports. Though eight witnesses were quoted, none of them were also examined in the enquiry. The eight witnesses, whose statements were taken at the time of preliminary enquiry reports, none were examined in the regular enquiry by the disciplinary authority. 5. Heard Mr.Venkata Ramana Pati, learned counsel representing Ms.Thota Suneetha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, a false allegations has been levelled against the petitioner by the villagers for their selfish ends and the petitioner has become a scape goat in the process of disciplinary proceedings initiated by the 3 rd respondent, which has resulted in withholding of increment with cumulative effect. The major penalty imposed on the petitioner is very harsh and severe as he is innocent and not at all responsible in the matter without there being any proper procedure followed as contemplated in the Conduct Rules, awarding major punishment, which is punitive in nature and suffers from lack of procedure. He further submits that the present punishment will have impact on the pensionary benefits of the petitioner on his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation, he will be put to heavy financial loss throughout his life and it will be a great irrevocable blow on the petitioner. Further, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in S.C.No.333 of 2017 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal, which has resulted in acquittal as the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. He further submits that once the petitioner denied the allegations, levelled against him and denied all the statements issued during the enquiry before the 4 th respondent, the competent authority has to conduct regular enquiry as contemplated in the Conduct Rules. He further submits that once the petitioner denied the allegations, levelled against him and denied all the statements issued during the enquiry before the 4 th respondent, the competent authority has to conduct regular enquiry as contemplated in the Conduct Rules. Basing on the report of the 5 th respondent dated 13.07.2015, the 3 rd respondent ought to have initiated departmental enquiry by framing Articles of charges, but the 3 rd respondent appointed the 4 th respondent as enquiry officer and the said officer conducted enquiry behind back of the petitioner, without giving any opportunity and submitted his report on 08.05.2017. He further submits that the deceased Putta Balaramudu has been granted exgratia under farmer suicidal death cases vide G.O.Rt.No.668, dated 21.05.2018 and vide proceedings of the Collector Roc.No.E1/260147/2019, dated 09.10.2019. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.4041 and 4042 of 2007 has categorically held that “without conducting regular enquiry awarding major punishment of withholding of increment of pay is bad in law”. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Nirmala J.Jhala vs. State of Gujarat and another , [ (2013) 4 SCC 301 ] , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “20. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Amlendu Ghosh v. District Traffic Superintendent, North-Eastern Railway, Katiyar , [ AIR 1960 SC 992 ] , held that the purpose of holding a preliminary inquiry in respect of a particular alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed and on the basis of the findings recorded in preliminary inquiry, no order of punishment can be passed. It may be used only to take a view as to whether a regular disciplinary proceeding against the delinquent is required to be held. 21. Similarly in Chiman Lal Shah v. Union of India , AIR 1964 SC 1854 , a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India . 21. Similarly in Chiman Lal Shah v. Union of India , AIR 1964 SC 1854 , a Constitution Bench of this Court while taking a similar view held that preliminary inquiry should not be confused with regular inquiry. The preliminary inquiry is not governed by the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India . Preliminary inquiry may be held ex-parte, for it is merely for the satisfaction of the government though usually for the sake of fairness, an explanation may be sought from the government servant even at such an inquiry. But at that stage, he has no right to be heard as the inquiry is merely for the satisfaction of the government as to whether a regular inquiry must be held. The Court further held as under: “…..There must, therefore, be no confusion between the two inquiries and it is only when the Government proceeds to hold a departmental enquiry for the purpose of inflicting on the government servant one of the three major punishment indicated in Article 311 that the government servant is entitled to the protection of that Article, nor prior to that.” 22. In Naryan Dattatraya Ramteerathakhar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2148 this Court dealt with the issue and held as under: “…..a preliminary inquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after issue of charge-sheet. The preliminary enquiry is only to find out whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Once regular enquiry is held under the Rules, the preliminary enquiry loses its importance and, whether preliminary enquiry was held strictly in accordance with law or by observing principles of natural justice of nor, remains of no consequence.” 23. In view of above, it is evident that the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice.” Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the writ petition. 8. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the record. 10. 8. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Perused the record. 10. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, when the petitioner was working as Village Revenue Officer of Thammadapalli Revenue Cluster of Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool district, one Pattu Balaramudu, S/o. Ramudu, resident of Rallakothur Village of Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool district committed suicide by self immolation by pouring kerosene in front of Tahsildar Office, Banaganapalli on 13.07.2015 and he was died due to non-resolving of his grievance, even though he approached the petitioner. Basing on the same, the 5 th respondent has submitted his preliminary enquiry report and the 3 rd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings dated 14.07.2015 and appointed the 4 th respondent as Enquiry Officer. The 4 th respondent after conducting enquiry has submitted the report dated 08.05.2017. Basing on the said report, the petitioner was re-instated and joined as VRO, Gadigarevula Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool district. Basing on the reports dated 13.07.2015 and 08.05.2017, article of charges were framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 09.11.2017. Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent vide proceedings dated 04.04.2018 imposed punishment of withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect. 11. As seen from the impugned proceedings dated 04.04.2018, this Court observed that, the petitioner has given his explanation stating that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer is one-sided and not enquired to find out truth of the issue before him. The enquiry was one sided only to victimize him and requested to examine in a positive way basing on the facts and recorded evidence available and drop further action on the proposed punishment. 12. This Court further observed that, only basing on the preliminary enquiry, the 3 rd respondent imposed the major punishment of dismissal from service, which was confirmed vide appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 19.07.2019 issued by the 2 nd respondent is bad and against the settled law. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that, Rule 21(2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, reads as under: “ Rule 21. 13. It is pertinent to mention here that, Rule 21(2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, reads as under: “ Rule 21. Action on the inquiry report:- (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 20 as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation of submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant.” 14. Admittedly, the purpose of holding a preliminary enquiry in respect of an alleged misconduct is only for the purpose of finding a particular fact and prima facie, to know as to whether the alleged misconduct has been committed. The findings recorded in preliminary enquiry cannot form the basis for a regular enquiry. Further, the evidence recorded in the preliminary enquiry cannot be used in regular enquiry, as the delinquent is not associated with it, and no opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in such an enquiry. Using such evidence would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, no regular enquiry was conducted under Rule 20 to prove the charges by examining the authors of the reports dated 13.07.2015 and 08.05.2017. It is settled principle of law that once the regular enquiry commences, the preliminary enquiry loses its significance. However the 3 rd respondent, merely relying on the enquiry reports, passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2018, which is bad in law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 04.04.2018 and also inclined to remand back the matter to the 3 rd respondent for proper appreciation. 15. However the 3 rd respondent, merely relying on the enquiry reports, passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2018, which is bad in law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 04.04.2018 and also inclined to remand back the matter to the 3 rd respondent for proper appreciation. 15. Accordingly, the impugned proceeding vide Rev-ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)-COLLKRNL, dated 04.04.2018 issued by the 3 rd respondent is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the 3 rd respondent to pass appropriate fresh reasoned orders, after giving opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.