P.Yesu Das, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2980 AP

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

               WRIT PETITION No.15043 OF 2021

ORDER:

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the order of

the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.233, Industries and

Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 01.12.2020.

2. By way of the order under challenge, the State

Government imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual

grade increment without cumulative effect on the petitioner and

also ordered recovery of an amount of Rs.13,51,000/-.

3. According to the petitioner herein, he is working as

Deputy Director in the District Industries Centre, Eluru, West

Godavari District. When the petitioner herein was working as

Assistant Director in the Department, the second respondent-

Commissioner of Industries vide proceedings No.40/1/

2004/0358/0358/ID-2, dated 24.09.2007, issued a Charge

Memo, which reads as under:

"Sri P.Yesudas, Asst.Director, O/o the G.M., DIC., Nellore (the then IPO, Tirupathi, O/o the G.M., DIC, Chittoor District) is hereby informed that it is proposed to take action against him under Rule-20 (3) of the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. A statement of the imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be taken against him is enclosed.

2. Sri P.Yesudas, Asst.Director, O/o the G.M.,DIC., Nellore (the then IPO, , Tirupathi, O/o the G.M., DIC, Chittoor District) is hereby given an opportunity to make such 2 AVSS,J W.P.No.15043 of 2021

representation, as he may wish to make against the proposed.

3. If Sri P.Yesudas fails to submit his representation within ten days, of the receipt of this Memorandum, it will be presumed that he has no representation to make and order will be liable to be passed against Sri P.Yesudas, Asst.Director, O/o the G.M.,DIC., Nellore (the then IPO, , Tirupathi, O/o the G.M., DIC, Chittoor District) ex parte.

4. The receipt of this Memorandum should be acknowledged by Sri P.Yesudas, Asst.Director, O/o the G.M.,DIC., Nellore (the then IPO, , Tirupathi, O/o the G.M., DIC, Chittoor District)".

In response to the said Charge Memo, on 12.10.2007, petitioner

herein submitted his explanation. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer

was appointed, who submitted a report on 06.08.2013. When a

notice was issued to the petitioner, enclosing the Enquiry

Report, petitioner herein submitted his explanation/objections

to the Enquiry Report on 30.12.2013. Now, eventually, by way

of the questioned Governmental Order, the State Government

imposed the punishment, as indicated above.

4. Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned

counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N.Aswartha Narayana,

learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the

respondents, apart from perusing the entire material available

on record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

questioned order of punishment is highly illegal, arbitrary,

unreasonable and opposed to the very spirit and object of the 3 AVSS,J W.P.No.15043 of 2021

provisions of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and

Appeal) Rules, 1991 and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of P.V.MAHADEVAN v.

MD.T.N.HOUSING BOARD1 and the judgment of the composite

High Court in the case of D.SRINIVAS v. GOVT. OF A.P.,

TRANSPORT, ROAD AND BUILDINGS (Vig.I) DEPARTMENT

AND OTHERS2. In elaboration, it is further contended by the

learned counsel that, without taking into consideration the

material available on record, including the explanation offered

by the petitioner herein from time to time, first respondent

herein inflicted the subject punishment and the said action is a

clear contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. On the contrary, it is strenuously contended by the

learned Government Pleader for Services-I that there is

absolutely no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity

in the impugned action and, in the absence of the same, the

order impugned is not amenable for any judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In elaboration, it is

further contended that, having regard to the grievous nature of

the charge and having regard to the findings of the Enquiry

Officer, the impugned punishment is in commensurate with the

charge levelled against the petitioner. It is also the submission

of the learned Government Pleader that, only after meticulously

considering the entire material available on record, first

respondent herein passed the impugned order of punishment,

as such, the same does not warrant any interference of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2005) 6 SCC 636

2013 (4) ALT 1 4 AVSS,J W.P.No.15043 of 2021

7. In the above background, now the issue, which this

Court is called upon to answer in the present Writ Petition, is:

whether the impugned order of punishment passed by the first

respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.233, Industries and Commerce

(Vigilance) Department, dated 01.12.2020, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, is sustainable and tenable in the eye

of law?.

8. There is absolutely no controversy with regard to the

realities, namely framing of charge, filing of explanation,

appointment of Enquiry Officer and submission of report by the

Enquiry Officer on 06.08.2013. It is also required to be noted

that the subject enquiry came to be initiated by issuing a

Charge Memo in the year, 2007. It is also not in dispute that,

after receipt of the Enquiry Officer's Report, petitioner herein

submitted explanation on 30.12.2013. In fact, a copy of the said

explanation is also filed along with the present Writ Petition as

material paper.

9. A perusal of the impugned order of punishment, in clear

and vivid terms, reveals that, though the first respondent herein

referred to all the events including the consent expressed by the

APPSC, first respondent herein failed to take into account the

contents of the explanation offered by the petitioner on

30.12.2013. In fact, petitioner herein brought to the notice of

the respondents various aspects touching the enquiry and,

eventually, made a request to exonerate him from the charge

framed against him, but the first respondent herein, in the

impugned order, did not consider any one of the contents in the 5 AVSS,J W.P.No.15043 of 2021

explanation, dated 30.12.2013, submitted by the petitioner

herein. Having provided opportunity to the petitioner herein,

after submission of the Enquiry Report by the Enquiry Officer

and having acknowledged the explanation offered in response to

the same, this Court does not find any justification on the part

of the first respondent in not referring to the contents of the

explanation, dated 30.12.2013. On the said ground, in the

considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot

stand for judicial scrutiny and this Court is also of the opinion

that the matter requires reconsideration by the first

respondent.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is allowed, setting

aside the G.O.Rt.No.233 Industries & Commerce (Vigilance)

Department, dated 01.12.2020, issued by the first respondent

herein, and the matter is remanded to the State Government-

first respondent herein for fresh consideration of the issue after

taking into account the explanation offered by the petitioner on

30.12.2013. It is left open to the petitioner herein to submit an

additional explanation, if any, within a period of two weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and it is open for him

to enclose the copies of the judgments on which the petitioner

herein seeks to place reliance in support of his submissions and

contentions. It is also made clear that, only after taking into

consideration of the entire material available on record, first

respondent herein shall pass appropriate orders in accordance

with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

                                       6                                     AVSS,J
                                                               W.P.No.15043 of 2021

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any

pending, in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

09th August, 2021.

Tsy