THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
APPEAL SUIT No.65 of 2001
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is plaintiff in the suit. Suit O.S.No.122 of 1992 was filed against the respondents herein for recovery of Rs.3,06,000/- towards compensation with interest @18% p.a. etc.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties to this appeal are referred to as they were arrayed in suit.
3. The dispute as alleged in the plaint, in brief, is that plaintiff worked as Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Srikakulam from 07.11.1987 to 22.06.1988. The 1st defendant was Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam, Srikakulam and Vizianagaram are under the control of 1st defendant. Defendants 3 to 7 worked as Forest Range Officers in several ranges in Srikakulam Division and they are subordinates of plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleged that since he has been discharging his duties in accordance with law, defendants 3 to 7, being subordinates, who were indulging in financial irregularities, sent a petition against the plaintiff to the higher officials with false allegations. Basing on the said petition, 1st defendant enquired into and in turn sent a report to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad. After thorough enquiry, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, framed charges on 11.06.1988 - Ex.X-45, viz., 2 (1) Financial irregularities in purchases made in Social Forestry Division, Srikakulam and rush of expenditure in February/March, 1988;
(2) Violation of conduct Rules and indiscipline by making press reports hurling allegations against the superior officers as corrupt; and (3) Extraction of money from the Range Officers and taking bribes from them, amounting to corruption. The 2nd defendant, the then Conservator of Forests, was appointed as enquiry officer and an enquiry was conducted against the plaintiff by Lok Ayuktha and Anti-Corruption Bureau. The 2nd defendant being enquiry officer, recorded finding that financial irregularities are partially proved; that violation of conduct rules and indiscipline is proved; that in respect of extraction of money, the enquiry officer held that no direct evidence is available to establish the same. However, plaintiff was kept under suspension on 20.06.1988, which came into effect from 22.06.1988.
The Principal Conservator of Forests, accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and recommended to the Government to impose pension cut of Rs.100/- to the plaintiff, since he was retired from service with effect from 30.06.1988. Accordingly, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Rt.No.798 dated 24.10.1991, Ex.X-55 accepting the recommendations of 1st defendant.
After issuance of Ex.X-55, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendants claiming damages alleging that due to 3 disciplinary enquiry, he was suspended and there was delay in settlement of terminal benefits. He further alleged that all incidents had taken place because of false accusation of corruption made against him by defendants 2 to 7 and basing on the report sent by the Conservator of Forests, the 1st defendant and prejudicial enquiry conducted by 2nd defendant. Thus, he filed the suit for the reliefs stated supra.
4. The 1st defendant filed written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint. It was contended interalia that he discharged his duties, being Government official and pointed out various irregularities committed by the plaintiff.
5. The 2nd defendant filed separate written statement and contended that he conducted enquiry as per the procedure invoked and submitted report.
6. Defendants 3 to 7 filed separate written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint.
7. During the course of trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-18 were marked. On behalf of defendants, 1st defendant examined himself as D.W.1, 3rd defendant examined himself as D.W.2, 4th defendant examined himself as D.W.6 and D.Ws.3 to 5 and 7 were examined. Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. Exs.X-1 to X-62 were also marked.
8. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 15.09.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the above appeal was filed. 4
9. The appeal was dismissed for default against defendants 2 to 7 by order dated 08.02.2011. No application was filed seeking restoration of appeal against the defendants 2 to 7.
10. Heard Sri N.Vijay, learned counsel for appellant.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the enquiry conducted by 2nd defendant is not in accordance with law and the petition sent by defendants 3 to 7 against the plaintiff is with false allegations to harass the plaintiff at the fag end of his career. Though necessary documents were supplied to the enquiry officer, they were not properly considered by him. He would further contend that by Ex.X-55, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.798 dated 24.10.1991 and ordered that further action against the plaintiff be dropped, as such the plaintiff is entitled for damages.
12. In the light of pleadings, evidence on record and arguments advanced, following points arise for consideration.
(1) Whether the appellant proved malafides against the 2nd defendant qua enquiry?
(2) Whether the appellant proved malafides against all the respondents and hence he is entitled for claiming compensation?
(3) To what relief?
13. Since the above three points are inter-connected, this Court deems it appropriate to deal with the same simultaneously.
5
14. A perusal of the plaint indicates that suit was filed for recovery of damages against the defendants. According to the plaintiff he suffered physically and mentally in view of suspension from the service and consequential proceedings culminating into issuance of Ex.X-55. Though the appellant contended that 2nd defendant/2nd respondent conducted enquiry malafidely without following the procedure, no cogent material was placed before the Court to substantiate the said contention. In fact, a perusal of Ex.X-55 indicates that since the plaintiff was retired from service, pension cut of Rs.100/- was imposed as penalty. In fact, in the enquiry report submitted by the 2nd respondent, finding with regard to irregularities committed by the plaintiff, was accepted by the Government. Enquiry report was not set aside.
15. The 2nd respondent, being the enquiry officer, followed the procedure and submitted the report to the Government for consideration. The 2nd respondent discharged his duties being enquiry officer. Plaintiff could not prove that 2nd respondent acted in deviation of his duties. Even a perusal of documents and evidence manifest that 2nd respondent duly followed the procedure and conduced enquiry and finally submitted report. In the absence of any material qua malice against 2nd respondent, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that the 2nd respondent-enquiry officer acted malafidely and submitted the report against the appellant. 6
16. A perusal of the evidence and documents shows that the appellant failed to prove that all the defendants acted malafidely against him, except making bald allegations, without substantiating the same. As pointed out supra, Ex.X-55 issued by the Government indicates that the appellant committed irregularities and since the appellant/plaintiff retired from service, a pension cut of Rs.100/- was imposed as penalty. Unless and until, Ex.X-55 issued by the Government is set aside, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief against the defendants. Apart from that, the appeal against the respondents 2 to 7 was dismissed for default on 08.02.2011.
17. Viewed from any angle, the appellant is not entitled to compensation and thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J 11th April, 2022 PVD 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI APPEAL SUIT No.65 of 2001 11th April, 2022 PVD