HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.9156 of 2019
ORDER :
In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order dated 19.05.2017, passed by the 2nd respondent imposing the major punishment of withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and ordering to recover an amount of Rs.3,58,970/- from the petitioner. He has also questioned the order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the 1st respondent, rejecting his appeal.
2. Heard Mr.Hemanth Kumar Vemuri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Ravi Kondaveeti, counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Education and Services-I, appearing for respondents. Perused the record.
3. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Statistical Assistant and was posted in the office of Deputy Director, Adult Education, Adilabad on 08.03.1989, and later, he was transferred to the office of Deputy Director, Adult Education, Khammam on 24.08.1992. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Project Officer on 05.08.2015 and was posted in Manthani Division. 2
JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019 While so, basing on a complaint made before the Lokayuktha, a charge memo vide proceedings dated 11.12.2015 was issued against the petitioner alleging that while functioning as Statistical Assistant in the office of Deputy Director of Adult Education, Khammam, an amount of Rs.7,17,940/- was found to be misappropriated by the petitioner by preparing bogus and forged bills/vouchers for purchase of certain items in Zilla Lok Siksha Samithi, Khammam. Petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 30.06.2016. Thereafter, the inquiry officer was appointed on 12.09.2016, inquiry report was submitted on 02.01.2017, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 12.02.2017, and ultimately, the order dated 19.05.2017 was passed by the 2nd respondent, imposing the major punishment of withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect and for recovery of Rs.3,58,970/- i.e. 50% of the alleged misappropriated amount. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 07.09.2018, confirming the order of punishment.
3
JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019
4. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents stating that basing on the complaint made before Lokayuktha with regard to misappropriation of funds, an inquiry was conducted against the petitioner, wherein, it was found that the petitioner along with one Mr. M.Ananda Ratna Kumar, the then Deputy Director have misappropriated an amount of Rs.7,17,940/-. Therefore, after conclusion of proceedings, the major punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner apart from ordering to recover an amount of Rs.3,58,970/- from him being 50% of the amount misappropriated.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that at relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Statistical Assistant in the office of Deputy Director of Adult Education, Khammam. Though he was not concerned with preparation of files, as the Accountant was not available, on the oral instructions of Deputy Director, he prepared some files. It is contended that all the amounts were paid through cheques, but the respondents have failed to furnish the counter-foils of such cheques so as to verify as to whom the payments were made and whether such amounts were 4 JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019 paid to any unauthorized suppliers. Even without verifying such counter-foils of cheques, the respondents have initiated proceedings against the petitioner and held the charge proved. Thus, it is his case that though the petitioner was working as Statistical Assistant at relevant point of time, as he prepared some files for purchasing certain items in Zilla Lok Siksha Samithi only as per the directions of the then Deputy Director, he cannot be made responsible for the alleged misappropriation of funds, that too, without proper evidence to establish the said charge. Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents that the petitioner along with one Mr. M.Ananda Ratna Kumar, the then Deputy Director have misappropriated an amount of Rs.7,17,940/- by producing bogus bills/vouchers with regard to purchase of certain items in Zilla Lok Siksha Samithi, which has been proved in the inquiry, therefore, the punishment has been imposed on the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has paid amounts to 5 JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019 certain Firms without proper sanction and also without proper work orders. It is also contended that no stock registers and stock receipt entries were available in the office in respect of the payments made to the tune of Rs.7,17,940/-, and as the same has been proved in the inquiry proceedings, punishment was imposed on the petitioner. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. In this case, it is to be noted that at relevant point of time when the alleged misappropriation has taken place, the petitioner was working as Statistical Assistant in the office of Deputy Director of Adult Education, Khammam. Though the petitioner was Statistical Assistant and not concerned with preparation of files with regard to purchase of items in Zilla Lok Siksha Samithi, it is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was orally directed by the Deputy Director to prepare such files and accordingly, he prepared certain files. It is to be seen that the files prepared by the petitioner are to be approved by the Deputy Director, therefore, if such files prepared by the petitioner are not in accordance with the prescribed procedure or if there are any loopholes, the approving authority will not approve the same until 6 JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019 the same are rectified. Thus, it can be said that the petitioner has to prepare the files as per the directions of his superior officers. Therefore, the irregularities, if any, will be attributable only to the approving authority, as the petitioner was just assisting his superior in preparation of files in the absence of regular Accountant. When the petitioner was orally directed to prepare the files which was not his regular job, he cannot take independent decision in such work and would normally discharge such duties as per the directions of his superior officer, here, the Deputy Director of Adult Education.
8. Apart from the above, the petitioner's contention is that all the payments were made through cheques and inspite of his request for supply of the counter-foils of such cheques, neither the respondents nor the Banks concerned have furnished the same, to prove as to whom the payments were made and whether such payments were made in accordance with Rules or otherwise. The respondents, without furnishing such details and without examining any witnesses, have conducted the inquiry merely basing on the charge memo and the explanation submitted by the 7 JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019 petitioner, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenglas Tea Estate v. Its Workmen 1, wherein, it is held that termination without proper inquiry and without examining witnesses would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. He has also relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G.Chinna Yogeswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & another 2, wherein, the punishment imposed on the employee was set aside on the ground that no witnesses were examined nor any documents were filed to prove the charges and the punishment was imposed simply on the basis of charge memo and explanation submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice.
10. Both the above judgments are applicable to the facts of the present case, as in this case also, the petitioner has sought for the counter-foils of the cheques through which payments were made, 1 MANU/SC/0139/1963 2 2022 (3) ALD 198 (AP)(DB) 8 JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019 so as to examine whether such payments were made in accordance with the Rules or not, however, the same were not furnished to him either by the respondents or the Banks concerned and the punishment was imposed holding that the charge of misappropriation against the petitioner was established in the inquiry. Therefore, the impugned orders of punishment are liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and the further order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the 1st respondent. Since the petitioner has retired from service, the respondents shall revive the withheld increment of the petitioner and extend all consequential monetary benefits to him in accordance with Rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 17.10.2023 ajr