Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Sri E. Venkat Reddy, on 23 August, 2024
APHC010080212024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3466]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 229/2024
Between:
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Sri E.Venkat Reddy ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. Learned GP for Services - I (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. Sri.Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti
The Court made the following:
//2//
WA.No.229 OF 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WA.No.229 OF 2024
JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Harinath. N) :
The writ appeal is preferred by the State challenging the order of
disposal of the writ petition passed by the learned Single Judge. The
learned Single Judge has held that there was gross negligence on part
of the respondents/appellants in conducting the disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner.
2. The learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned order
dated 01.08.2022 which was passed after lapse of ten years from the
date of initiation of the proceedings and after lapse of six years from
the date of submission of explanation by the petitioner.
3. The respondent was working as Assistant Director (Handlooms
and Textiles) at the time of attaining the age of superannuation on
30.04.2011. Articles of charge dated 16.02.2012 were issued to the
respondent calling for explanation on the charges framed for the period
1996 - 2004 and 2008 - 2009.
4. It was alleged that, the respondent had failed to find out the
genuineness of the records of five societies. The said societies had
claimed inflated marketing incentives and caused misappropriation of
funds sanctioned to those societies to a tune of Rs.49,71,900/-. It was
//3//
WA.No.229 OF 2024
further alleged that the respondent had failed to detect bogus
membership and recommended for sanction of excess cash
credit/incentives of Rs.6,09,500/-.
5. The respondent submitted his explanation on 09.03.2012. The
enquiry officer submitted his report on 11.02.2013 holding that part of
the charges were proved against the respondent.
6. Without considering the explanation submitted by the
respondent, show cause notice dated 26.03.2016 was issued calling
upon to explain as to why penalty of cut in pension by 15% on
permanent basis should not be imposed against the respondent.
7. The respondent submitted his explanation on 16.04.2016. The
impugned order was passed on 11.08.2022 imposing the punishment
of cut in pension by 15%. The respondent aggrieved by the punishment
imposed on him filed writ petition before this Court. The learned Single
Judge has considered the case of the respondent on merits and had
held that the officers of the appellant had exhibited gross negligence in
concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein.
8. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the learned
Single Judge erred in not considering the fact that there was an
abnormal delay on part of the respondent in submitting his explanation
and that the charges which were issued against the respondent were
//4//
WA.No.229 OF 2024
well within the prescribed period of limitation as envisaged under AP
Revised Pension Rules.
9. The learned Government Pleader also submits that, there is no
bar in law for initiation of appropriate action against an erring employee
more so when there is a huge financial loss to the public exchequer.
10. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the
inaction on the part of the respondent in taking appropriate action at
the appropriate time against the five societies which had submitted
bogus claims. Such inaction on part of the respondent is to be treated
as dereliction of duty with ulterior motives.
11. It is submitted that the appellants had exhibited different
yardsticks in case of similarly situated employees, namely, S.Ahmed
Mohiddin, K.Ramappa, S.Basava Raju, S.Appaji and
B.Chandrasekhara Raju. The Commissioner of Handlooms and
Textiles had imposed the punishment of stoppage of five annual grade
increments with cumulative effect. The employees had appealed to
Government and the Government had modified the punishment as
censure.
12. The learned counsel also submits that the case of the
respondent is similarly situated as that of the employees named above.
However, the appellants have without considering the representation of
//5//
WA.No.229 OF 2024
the respondent dated 06.05.2019 imposed the punishment of 15% cut
in pension on permanent basis.
13. There is no explanation for the abnormal delay in conducting the
disciplinary proceedings. It is also evident that charges were issued
after ten months after the date of the superannuation of the
respondent. It is equally curious to note that Articles of charge relate to
the period during which the respondent was working as Assistant
Director during the period 1996 - 2004 and 2008 - 2009.
14. It is evident that the concerned officer who had the
superintendence over the functioning and discharge of the role of the
respondent has royally exhibited utmost negligence in discharging his
duty. It is the 2nd respondent who has to be held accountable for the
abnormal delay in conducting and completing the enquiry within
reasonable period of time. The 2 nd respondent has to be held
accountable for having exhibited different yardstick in so far as
imposing of punishment for similarly placed employees and the
respondent herein.
15. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is not only
devoid of merits, but also a glaring example of non-application of mind
by the officers concerned while deciding matters pertaining to
misappropriation of funds of the Cooperative Societies. The conduct of
the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings and
//6//
WA.No.229 OF 2024
passing of the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 speaks volumes of
the non-commitment they have towards the public while serving as a
Public Servants.
16. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the conduct of the
appellants cannot be condoned and it is made clear that the
respondents ought to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against any of the employee(s) are to be conducted and concluded by
following the principles of natural justice within a reasonable period of
time.
17. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed
without costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 23.08.2024
KGM
//7//
WA.No.229 OF 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT APPEAL No.229 OF 2024
23.08.2024
KGM
