-. ORDER : 1. W.P.No.10887 of 2025 is filed questioning G.O.Rt.No.689, dated 27.09.2024, imposing penalty of withholding one (1) annual grade increment without cumulative effect, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 [for short “APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991” ]. 2. W.P.No.19036 of 2025 is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in seeking to supersede the Petitioner in promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Sales Taxes), as illegal and arbitrary. 3. As these Writ Petitions are interrelated, a Common Order is being passed. 4. The facts in brief are as follows: The Petitioner while working as Commercial Tax Officer re-designated as Assistant Commissioner in the Commercial Tax Office, Piduguralla Circle, Guntur District. While so, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, along with his team conducted a surprise-check on the Border Check Post of Pondugula, Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur District on 03.06.2016 and found certain amounts of money in a dustbin and table drawer at the check-post and came to a conclusion that the amounts belong to the staff. - 5. The Petitioner was not in the office at the time of the surprise check and no amounts were recovered from her. Based on the report submitted by the surprise check staff, a solitary charge was framed against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.310, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 02.03.2020. 6. The Article of Charge is that the Petitioner was overall in- charge of her jurisdiction including Vehicular Traffic Check Observation Points and was the immediate superior officer of the staff of check post. The Petitioner failed to supervise her sub-ordinate staff indulging in corrupt activities. 7. The statement of Imputations of Misconduct or Misbehaviour was all about the surprise check and the alleged recovery. It is stated that on credible information from the officials of Commercial Tax Department of Border Check Post at Pondugula Village, Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur District on Addanki-Narkatpalli Goods Vehicles, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Guntur District organized a surprise check on the said check post along with his staff in the presence of two mediators from 21.00 hours on 03.06.2016 to 04.00 hours on 04.06.2016. - 8. - 8. After reaching near the check post, the surprise check party and mediators took vantage positions in and around the said Border Check-Post and watched the activities of the staff and noticed that one person is stopping transport goods vehicles by whistling, taking away the drivers/cleaners of the transport goods vehicles to inside the check post and in turn staff of check post, who are six (6) in number collecting some money from them even without verifying records. 9. When some of the drivers/cleaners of the transport goods vehicle were denying to pay money to the staff, the staff forced them to pay the amounts otherwise they will impose compounding fee. It is stated that at 9.00 p.m., the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Surprise Check Party surprised the check post and found the staff of the check post and also six (6) transport vehicle drivers. On search, the surprise check party found some amounts, which were stated to be the personal cash of the staff. On perusal of the Personal Cash Register at the check post, it is noted that the shift personal cash particulars were not entered in the Register. - 10. On further search of the check-post in the presence of mediators and the Administrative Officer of the check-post, an amount of Rs.20,250/- was found at the check-post staff. It is stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB had examined six (6) transport goods drivers and they had stated that the check-post staff are collecting Rs.150/- each for stamping on transit pass and they are demanding money from other lorry drivers. The list of documents were specified in Annexure-III and List of Witnesses were specified in Annexure-IV of the Charge Memo. 11. Sri D. Ramesh, then Commissioner (ST), Office of the Chief Commissioner (ST), Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada was appointed as Enquiry Officer. 12. In the statement before the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner stated that every Border Check-Post in the State during the relevant period was being headed by an Administrative Officer (A.O) in the cadre of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Once the staff posted to the Check-Post duty, it is basic responsibility of the said Administrative Officer (A.D) to ensure that all the staff discharge their functions or duties promptly without involving in any kind of irregularity or allowing any private persons at the Check-Post. Once the staff posted to the Check-Post duty, it is basic responsibility of the said Administrative Officer (A.D) to ensure that all the staff discharge their functions or duties promptly without involving in any kind of irregularity or allowing any private persons at the Check-Post. In his absence, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer on the Check-Post duty would officiate as an Administrative Officer as per the circular instructions of the learned Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued while in the composite State in Ref.No.D2/421/2007, dated 24-05-2017 read with the orders of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the composite State in G.O.Rt.No.2101, Revenue (CT-III) Department dated 24.09.2007. 13. Therefore, just because the Border Check Post, Pondugala being in her territorial jurisdiction as CTO, Piduguralla, the Petitioner would not be automatically become immediately superior officer to supervise the work of the Border Check post duties and their activities in the check-post. Thus, the allegation as CTO, Border Check-Post, Pondugala that Petitioner did not take any steps to prevent corrupt practice by the staff at the check-post is totally a misnomer. In fact, there is no post of Commercial Tax Officer, Border Check-Post, Pondugala. 14. It is further stated that the question of slackness of supervision over the staff of the Border Check Post would arise only with the Petitioner physical presence at the above place for any irregularities found of noticed by the Petitioner then and did not take any remedial action of measures to prevent irregularities or lapses on the part of the duty staff at the Border Check-Post and in such case it can be said as lack of supervision in the discharge of Petitioner’s official duties. For any irregularities that took place in absence of Petitioner due to her non duty hours, the concerned staff on duty alone should be held responsible. - 15. For any irregularities that took place in absence of Petitioner due to her non duty hours, the concerned staff on duty alone should be held responsible. - 15. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the Petitioner would be held responsible for the irregularities occulted in her absence due to her non duty hour in the name of slack of supervision and the concerned persons with whom the above money found should be alone held responsible, Thus, fastening disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner like the present Charge Memo is totally unwarranted and uncalled for in as much as the same would demoralize sincere officers like who toll hard in the interest of revenue and never had any adverse comments against the Petitioner in the discharge of her official duties since her appointment as direct ACTO in the year 1995. Generally, the lady officers of the department would not be expected to perform supervision duties over the Border Check-Post staff at odd hours staying on the high way main roads, to avert any untoward incidents to them from any reckless/drunkard public passing through the highway road. - 16. After thorough examination of evidence, common enquiry report was submitted holding that Charge of bribery against the staff was held not proved. The explanation of the Petitioner was accepted and the enquiry officer held that the Petitioner is not the immediate authority and cannot be made responsible. The Respondent No.1 taking note of the enquiry report issued a disagreement note vide Memo No.REV-17023/39/2016-VIG II - REV, dated 19.03.2023 calling for the explanation of the Petitioner and 6 others. The Petitioner and others submitted their explanation to the disagreement note on 03.08.2024. 17. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.689, dated 27.09.2024, imposing penalty of withholding of one (1) annual grade increment without cumulative effect even though the Petitioner was not present in the office at the surprise check. The Paragraph No.4 of the impugned order is extracted below: “4. The Government, after a detailed examination of the Inquiry Report and the written representations submitted by the Charged Officers to the disagreement factors, found that although mediators did not witness any money exchanges during the surprise check, the unaccounted cash found suggests bribery. It was concluded that the Charged Officers were responsible for the seized amounts based on the preponderance of probability standard in departmental action. It was concluded that the Charged Officers were responsible for the seized amounts based on the preponderance of probability standard in departmental action. The Government have decided to impose penalties on the Charged Officers for committing irregularities and for violation of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” - 18. The Government imposed penalties against the charged Officers under Rule 9 of A.P. Civil Service (CC& A) Rules, 1991 as detailed below: S. No. Name of the Charged Officer Punishment imposed 1. Sri Ande Santharam, Administrative Officer Imposed a punishment of one increment without cumulative effect 2. Smt.G. Majula Rani, CTO, Piduguralla 3. Sri P. Smithner, ACTO Impose penalty of withholding of three (3) annual grade increments with cumulative effect 4. Sri L. Srinivasulu, Sr. Assistant 5. Sri P. Raghavulu, Sr. Assistant 6. Sri T. Venkateswarlu, Jr. Assistant 7. Sri D.V. Suresh Kumar, Jr. Assistant 8. Sri P. Veereswara Rao, Jr. Assistant 9. Sri Ch. Venkateswarlu, Office Subordinate - 19. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 20. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the impugned order does not mention any reasons for imposing the penalty, more so, when the same is being passed in disagreement to the enquiry report. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would further submit that even the disagreement note dated 09.03.2024 is not in consonance with the procedure prescribed under the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, which requires tentative reasons for disagreement and then calling for explanation, which is not faulted with in this case. 21. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that the disagreement note dated 09.03.2024 is in consonance with the A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991 and the disagreement need not be duplicated in the impugned proceedings. 22. Having heard the respective counsel, the following issue falls for consideration; a) Whether the impugned punishment against the petitioner by the Disciplinary authority is sustainable? b) Whether the Charge framed against the Petitioner be termed to be misconduct at all? - 23. Issue (a): The charge against the Petitioner is different from the others i.e. staff at the check-post. The charge is one of lack of supervision in controlling the staff from indulging in corruption being the immediate authority. The impugned order as extracted above does not mention any reasons but only stated that the Petitioners were responsible for the seized amounts based on preponderance of probability of any departmental action. The charge is one of lack of supervision in controlling the staff from indulging in corruption being the immediate authority. The impugned order as extracted above does not mention any reasons but only stated that the Petitioners were responsible for the seized amounts based on preponderance of probability of any departmental action. Even assuming that the charge is held proved for the sake of argument, the same does not automatically mean that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct as the charge against the Petitioner is lack of supervision. The tentative reasons as well as impugned order do not address the defence of the Petitioner. 24. It is relevant to note here that in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer considered the explanation of the Petitioner and accepted the same by holding that the Petitioner is not guilty of lack of supervision. The finding of the enquiry report as regards the Petitioner is extracted below; “On careful verification of the charges framed against Smt.G.Manjula Rani (S.O: 9) and verification of the explanation given, it is noticed that she was working as the Commercial Tax Officer, Piduguralla at the time of surprise check. The geographical location of the Border Check Post of Commercial Taxes, Pondugala lies within the territorial jurisdiction of the Piduguralla Cirde. Hence, it is clear that the location of the BCP alone lies in the territorial jurisdiction of the CTO, Piduguralla. - It is further observed that the BCP, Pondugala was headed by an Administrative Officer (AO) separately in the cadre of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the AO would be responsible for the administrative control and overall functioning of the check post. It is further noticed that the duty chart was drafted by the Administrative Officer, BCP, Pondugala charting the duties for the officers and staff for smooth functioning of the check post. The Administrative Officer, BCP is the head of the BCP and is under the direct control of the Deputy Commissioner concerned. He is neither under the control of the CTO, Piduguralla nor accountable to the CTO, Piduguralla. Hence, it is very dear that Smt.G.Manjula Rani, the then CTO, Piduguralla does not have any administrative control over the functioning of the BCP Pondugala. It is also observed that she does not have any control over the BCP as the staff and the officers are directly posted by the Deputy Commissioner(CT), Narasaraopet Division. Hence, it is very dear that Smt.G.Manjula Rani, the then CTO, Piduguralla does not have any administrative control over the functioning of the BCP Pondugala. It is also observed that she does not have any control over the BCP as the staff and the officers are directly posted by the Deputy Commissioner(CT), Narasaraopet Division. In view of the above, It is very clear that the S.O. 9 is not vested with the supervision and nor administrative control over the B.C.P. Even though the territorial jurisdiction of the B.C.P. lies in the Piduguralla Circle, the S.O.9 is not connected with the BCP administration, supervision and control. As there is no administrative control, the question of supervision over the BCP also does not arise. Hence, she cannot be held responsible for the lapses noticed at the time of surprise check by the ACB Search Party. Hence, the charge framed against the individual (S.O. 9) is not proved.” - 25. In the light of categorical findings by the Enquiry Officer, tentative reasons for disagreement are required to be given under Rule 21(2) of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. The Rule 21(2) of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 reads as under; “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 favorable or not to the Government servant.” - 26. The above extracted Rule requires tentative reasons with reference to evidence on record and the findings arrived at in the enquiry report on any article of charge and this is apparent on the highlighted portion of the above Rule. A general and a vague reason disagreeing with the enquiry report would not suffice, as the delinquent would be in a piquant situation as he would be uncertain as to the cause of disagreement. A general and a vague reason disagreeing with the enquiry report would not suffice, as the delinquent would be in a piquant situation as he would be uncertain as to the cause of disagreement. The requirement to provide tentative reasons for disagreement by the disciplinary authority on the basis of findings and evidence on record is not only a statutory requirement, but is also an aspect of fair play. 27. In the present case, the disagreement issued by the disciplinary authority is on the premise that recovery of amounts from the office stood proved and the onus of disproving the same is on the charged officers even though it is not established by the prosecution that the bribe amounts/mamools are collected by charged officers is not at all relevant for this petitioner considering the nature of charge. The tentative reasons and consequential punishment against this petitioner reflects abject approach by the Respondent authority as regards the petitioner. - 28. Coming to the claim with regard to promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax), this Court is of the opinion that the nature of charge against the Petitioner is only with regard to the supervision. The lack of supervision per se cannot be said to be a misconduct under the Conduct Rules, even otherwise, this charge was not held not proved in the enquiry as the Petitioner is not the immediate controlling authority at the check-post as the same is under the actual control of Administrative Officer. These aspects of the enquiry report were not at all looked into before imposing the impugned order of punishment. As the impugned order and consequential delay on trivial charge is coming in the way of consideration of Petitioner’s case for promotion, this Court is inclined to direct the Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax) without reference to the present disciplinary proceedings. 29. As the impugned order and consequential delay on trivial charge is coming in the way of consideration of Petitioner’s case for promotion, this Court is inclined to direct the Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (Sales Tax) without reference to the present disciplinary proceedings. 29. In the light of the above, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petitions with the following directions; (i) The impugned order issued by Respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.689, dated 27.09.2024 is set-aside; - (ii) The case is remitted to the disciplinary authority for taking further action from the stage of enquiry report; (iii) Pending further action, the Petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (ST) without reference to the disciplinary action referred above; (iv) No order as to costs. 30. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. -