Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Anti Corruption Bureau For The ... vs G.Krishna Rao, on 27 January, 2021
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C.Praveen Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL No.36 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
Anti Corruption Bureau for the State of Andhra Pradesh
rep., by the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau,
PN Bus Station, Dr. N.T.R. Administrative Building,
2nd Floor, Vijayawada, Krishna District,
Through Standing Counsel-cum-Special P.P. for ACB,
(Rayalaseema Region), at High Court of A.P.
at Amaravati.
.. Appellant.
Versus
1. G. Krishna Rao, S/o late Sri Venkateswara Rao,
Aged 60 years, Retired P&E Inspector, R/o H.No.242675 2B,
Sai Sadan Apartments, Saraswathi Nagar,
Darga Metta, SPSR Nellore, State of A.P., and others.
..Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. S.M. Subhani
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherla Kota
Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 : GP for Services I.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 27.01.2021
per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ
Heard Mr. S.M. Subhani, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. I.A.No.2 of 2021 is an application seeking leave to appeal against the
order dated 25.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.13476 of 2019, whereby this
court directed as follows:
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.36/2021
"Hence, in view of the above circumstances, the
respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry pending
against the petitioner, within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the
charge memo vide TEC No.596 of 2013, dated 17.01.2018
issued by the 3rd respondent, shall stand quashed."
3. The petitioner before the writ court was working as Prohibition &
Excise Inspector, Kandukur and he retired from service on 31.01.2019.
A charge memo was issued to him in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.596 of 2013,
dated 17.01.2018. The charge in the charge memo reads as follows:
"That you, Sri G. Krishna Rao, while working as Proh. &
Excise Inspector, P& E Station, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District
from 14-07-2008 to 31-07-2011. From the period 01-07-2008
to 30-06-2010 pertaining to previous excise license period
your jurisdiction covered 3 shops of A1 syndicate. (No shops
of A1 syndicate pertaining to lease period 01-07-2010 to
30-06-2012 are found in your jurisdiction). During the period,
the syndicate paid Rs.18,000/- as monthly mamools per each
shop to Atmakur P&E Station vide entries in Table No.5 of
Annexure-II, Table-2 OTHERS of Annexure-IV. You were
allowed the license holders to sell the liquor above the MRP
rates, to run the shops beyond the prescribed timings and
allowed sale of loose liquor for consumption at the above wine
shops without license/permission and thereby caused
pecuniary advantage to the owners of the wine shops located
in your limits and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.36/2021
the meaning of Rule 3(1) & (2) of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules 1964 r/w Rule 2(b) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary
Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1989 framed under the A.P. Civil
Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 as
amended in 1993."
Thus, the allegations pertain to a period from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2010.
4. It is seen from the records that the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings is one of the heads of the Department under the
Administrative Control of General Administration (Ser.E) Department and
the Secretary (FAC), Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, had written a
letter dated 25.02.2020, amongst others, to the Secretary to Government
(Services & HRM), General Administration (Ser-E) Department, A.P.
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, stating that it is necessary to take
immediate steps for shifting the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings of
Andhra Pradesh from Hyderabad to Vijayawada.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant seeks to contend that as the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings is not set up, direction of the learned
single Judge could not be complied with.
6. Admittedly, the appellant was not a party in the writ proceedings and
the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise,
amongst others, were the party respondents. In a matter of present
nature, when the respondents in the writ petition have not chosen to
contest the order of the learned single Judge, we are not inclined to grant
leave to the appellant solely on the ground that the appellant had
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.36/2021
registered a case, which refers to same subject matter, in FIR No.2/RCO-
NLR/2012, dated 25.01.2012.
7. Accordingly, leave to prefer appeal is declined and I.A.No.2 of 2021
is dismissed. Correspondingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed without going
into the merits of the case. All the pending miscellaneous applications shall
stand dismissed. No costs.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Nn
HCJ & CPK, J
WA No.36/2021
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
I.A.NO.2 OF 2021 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL No.36 of 2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Dt: 27.01.2021
Nn
