G Raja Rao vs State Of Ap
2021 Latest Caselaw 4490 AP

                                     1




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
              WRIT PETITION No.10990 of 2021
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus to declare the impugned punishment orders issued vide Procd.No.Vig (2)/7047/KHMM/01-02, dated:11.08.2006, issued by the 2nd respondent and which was slightly modified by G.O.Rt.No.65 Housing (VIG.CELL) Department, dated:22.09.2020 issued by the 1st respondent, whereas the same punishment orders issued against another co-delinquent has been cancelled by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.78 Housing Department, dt:11.04.2011, consequent on the common acquittal orders passed in CC.No.420/06, dated:25.02.2009, and failed to extend the same benefits of cancellation orders to the petitioner amounts to clear discrimination, illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the law declared in case of D.Srinivas vs State of A.P. reported in 2013 (4) ALT Page 1 (D.B.), accordingly, set aside the impugned punishment orders, dated:11-08-2006, and 22.09.2020 and consequently direct the respondents to release all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner immediately and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

      This   Court       has     heard    Sri       Ramalingeswara          Rao

Kocherlakota       and    Sri    Rajesh       Maddi,     learned     counsel

representing the learned Government Pleader for Services-IV.

With the consent of all the learned counsel, the Writ

Petition itself is taken up for hearing.

The petitioner along with two other employees of the 2 nd

respondent-Corporation were charge sheeted and found guilty

in a departmental enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner

points out that orders were passed against all the three officers

to recover a sum of Rs.8,48,000 in the ration of 20:30:50. As

far as the present petitioner is concerned a sum of

Rs.2,54,400/- was proposed to be recovered and a further

punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with

cumulative effect was given. The petitioner and the other co-

delinquents took up the matter with the Government, which

thereafter reduced the punishment, as far as petitioner is

concerned to stoppage of five annual grade increments without

cumulative effect, besides the recovery of Rs.2,54,400/- with

12% interest. Similarly, the punishment in cases of other

employees were also modified. Learned counsel also points out

that the criminal case filed against the petitioner in C.C.No.42

of 2006 ended in acquittal. This was brought to the notice of

the State. Apart from this learned counsel for the petitioner

points out that out of three employees, who were charge

sheeted, the case against one employee was totally dropped, by

G.O.Rt.No.78 was issued on 11.04.2011 cancelling the

punishment imposed against Mr.V.Ramulu. Learned counsel

submits that since the accusation against all the three is

common and they were all initially found to be guilty and the

money was sought to be recovered in certain proportion, the

order by which the punishment is dropped against

Mr.V.Ramulu is clearly discriminatory. He relies upon a

Division Bench judgment reported in D.Srinivas v

Government of A.P. Transport, Roads and Buildings (Vig.I)

Dept., and Others 1 , to argue that the action of the

respondents in imposing penalty on a petitioner alone while

dropping the action against the co-delinquents amounts to

discrimination. Therefore, learned counsel prays for an order.

Sri Rajesh Maddi, learned counsel representing the State

argues the punishment was imposed after an enquiry. Basing

on the acquittal in the criminal case and other factors the

punishment was also modified. He, therefore, submits that

once loss is caused to the Government, the petitioner cannot

claim that he should be exonerated. He submits that in such

cases the proceedings should be allowed to go to their logical

conclusion and should not be stopped. He relies upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal

No. 5153 of 2021, in support of his contention. As far as the

Division Bench judgment is concerned he submits that it is

clearly distinguishable on facts. Therefore, learned counsel

argues that as the State has sustained loss the petitioner

cannot claim any relief in this case unless the loss is recouped.

COURT:

This Court after considering the submissions made

notices that there is no serious dispute in this case about the

facts. The counter also supports what has been stated earlier.

It is fact that three officials were charge sheeted and

2013 (4) ALT 1 (D.B.)

punishment was imposed on all the three, recovery was also

directed to be made from all the three employees. However,

post acquittal in a criminal case by proceedings dated

11.04.2011, the entire punishment imposed against one

delinquent was dropped. The recovery was also waived. The

representation of the petitioner to the respondents for an equal

treatment did not result in any substantive relief except that

the punishment was modified to recovery and stoppage of

annual grade increments without cumulative effect. The

counter affidavit filed does not explain why the petitioner was

treated differently from the other co-delinquent Mr.V. Ramulu,

against whom the punishment was cancelled. The Division

Bench judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner is the judgment in D. Srinivas v Government of

Andhra Pradesh2. This Court notices that in that case there

were two delinquents. When proceedings against one were

dropped because he approached the Administrative Tribunal,

the Division Bench clearly held that when proceedings were

dropped against one delinquent, who was charged with

identical charges, punishing the other is discrimination. The

Division Bench also relied upon an unreported judgment of the

Division Bench of the combined High Court also in paragraph

12. In the present case, the proceedings against Mr.V. Ramulu

the 3rd delinquents were dropped by the Government. He did

not secure any order from a Court for this purpose. The

(2013) 4 ALT 1

Government in its discretion decided to drop the proceedings

against Mr.V.Ramulu. In the opinion of this Court, the

petitioner before this Court is on a stronger wicket. Even

without a judicial pronouncement or judicial determination the

proceedings were dropped against one co-delinquent, who was

found jointly and severally liable. Allowing the State to recover

the money from this petitioner is clearly discriminatory, in the

opinion of this Court, particularly when Mr.V. Ramulu has

been given a substantial relief by the State. The Division Bench

judgment squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of

the present case.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is

entitled to an order as prayed for. The punishment order dated

11.08.2006. which was modified by G.O.Rt.No.65, dated

22.09.2020 are hereby set aside. In view of the setting aside of

these two orders the petitioner shall be entitled to all the

consequential reliefs i.e., pension, gratuity etc.,

With these observations the Writ Petition is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:03.11.2021.

Ssv