Matha Surya Rao vs S.K.Das
2022 Latest Caselaw 1723 AP

       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.,

(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

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.

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.

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.

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

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

APPEAL SUIT No.65 of 2001

11th April, 2022

PVD