Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

R Padmaja Rani vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 September, 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION}
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
"PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL NO: 743 OF 2024

(Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letler Patent is filed being aggrieved by
the Order dated 06.08.2024 made in W.P.No.15492 of 2023}

Setween:
R Padmaja Rani, Wo S.Srikanth, Age SO years, Occ Assistant Audit officer,
O/o the District Audit Officer, State Audit, Rajamahneravaram, East Godavari
District, a
» AppellantPetitioner
AND
i. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Hs Special Finance secretary to
Government, Finance and. Planning Department, Andhra Pradesh
Secretarial, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Sunlur istrict. Andhra Pradesh.

3

The Directorate of State Audit, Andhra Pradesh Rep, by its Director,
Mangalagini, Guntur District.

3. The Regional Deputy Director, State Audit, Zone U, Eluru, Eluru District.
4. The ONetriet Audi Officer, State Audit, Rajamahneravaram, East
Godavari District,

S. G. Vara Prasad, Sfo Late Prabhakar Rao, Aged 43 years, Occ Senior
Auditor, fo. The District  Auait Officer, State Audit,
Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District

G. M Rajali, S/o. Late Jesudanam, aged 43 years, Ofo. The District Audit:

Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District


£2

10.

7

swale
ols

Ch Mithravinda, [Vo Oh. Venkata Rao, aged 47 years, Ofo. The District
Audit Officer, State Audit, Ralamahendravaram, East Godavan [Neiriet

® Surya Kurnar, Dio. 'KO Suryanarayana, aged 40 years, Ofo. The
District Audit Officer, State Aucit, Ralamahencravaram, Fast Godavyert
District |
« Bharathkondaraiu, S/o. K Soma Sekhar Varma aged 25 years . Oe.
The District Audit Officer, State Audit, Ralamahendravaram, East
Godavari District.

POV. Salyanarayana, Sio P. Krishna, aged 45 years, Ofo. The Ois
Audit Officer, State Audit, Ralamahendravaram, East Godavari District

.K Ranjith Kurnar, S/o. K. Satyanarayana, aged 46 years, Ofo. The

District Audi Officer, State Audi, Ralamahendravaram, East Godavari
District.

-RSY Bheameswera Rao, S/o Gangaialam, aged 42 years, Gfo. The

Disinct Audit Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari .
District.

.8 Bhima Sarkar, Sfo. BB. Krishna, aged 42 years, Ofo. The Distric

Audit Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavan District

.K Deepak, Sfo. KM. Luther Paul, aged 43 years, Ofo. The Cistriet Aucit

Officer, State Audit, Rai jamahendravaram, ast Godavari (istrict

-& Vileya Durga, Dve. A . Nageswara Rao, aged 44 years, Ovo. The

District Audh Offe ey, State Audit, Rajamahendraveram, East Godavari
District,

.Ch Murall Krishna, . So. Sat ayanarayana aged 48 years . Ofo. The

District Aucit Officer State Audit, Rai lamahendraveram, East Gocavart
District,

. K Surekha, Dyo. Late K. Rajendra aged 44 years, Ofo. The District Audit

Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavan CNSHict,

_G Srinivasu, S/o. Dhana Ralu, aged 38 years, Ofo. The District Audit

Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram, mast Godavari District,


19.3 Paul Anil Raj, Sfo. J P Joshi, aged 31 years, O/o. The District Audi
Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari Cistrict.
. . Respondents
(Respondent Nos.§ to 19 impleaded as per Court Order Dated
31.08.2023 Vide IA No. 2/2023 in WP.No.15492 of 2023}

LANo. 1 of 3034:

Petition under Section 454 oF CPC is filed praying that fn the
circumstances stated in the affidavit fled in suppert of the petition, the High
Court may be pleased to suspend the Merno SOA No. 138/Admn/2024.25
dated 08-08-2024 passed by the 3° respondent relieving the petifioner from
the Office of the District Aucit Oificer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram with
instructions to join in the post of Assistant Audit officer (AMRUT) Muni icipal
Council, Gudivada, Pendi ing ef isposal of WA No. 713 of 2024, on the file of
the High Court,

The Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Pefitien and the
affidavit fled in support thereof and the earlier order of the High Court
dated.03.09.2024, made herein and upon hearing the arguinents of SRIL VS
NAGARAJU, Advocate for the Appellant, and of GP FOR SERVICES-1 for the
Respondent Nos.1 fo 4, and of SR} ) SITARAM CHAPARLA, Advocate for the
Respondent Nos.§ to 19, the Court made the follow ing

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader over multiple dates and the learned counsel for the respondent nos.§ to 19 who came to be impleaded as party respondents an the premise that all of them are parties to the complaint made against the appellant. |

The Director, State Audit Department, Mangalagiri in his affidavit in paragraph no.g has deposed that the complaint was addrassed fo the Mistrict Audit Officer and copy was marked to the Director and Regional Deputy Director. The sum and substance of the complaint was that, the salary for the month of April 2023 was not claimed by the appellant who apparently is the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, As per the aNidavit of the Director, the time schedule for submitting the regular salary bills is 17 to 28" of the preceding month and the time schedule for submitting the supplementary salary bills is 6" to 10° of the succeeding month, Prima facie Wf this statement is appreciated in the back drop of the document marked as DDO Code 89010703004 it is seen that payment of salary in July 2022 is on 08.8.2022, payment of salary for August 2022 has been made on 02.9.2022, payment of salary for the month of September 2022 has been made on 03.16.2022 and for October and November 2022 has been made on first of the succeeding month and for Recember 2022, January 2023 and March 2023 salary payment has been made on third of the succeeding month and for the month of Apri! 2023 the salary payment is made on 06.5.2023, would render the present allegation against the appelantsuspect.

What is pertinent to note is that the complaint regarding non relpase of salary was made on 04.5.2023 itself, 'The sum and substance of the complaint, as discernible from the statement of one Paul Anil Raj, tischarging dutles as a Junior Auditor, who has alleged that the apnpaliant District Audit OT icer summoned him and instructed him not to process the pay BH! | including the process of preparing manual bil j MS-Excel undll further instructions and she further expressed that she i not interested fo process the salaries of the staff: that, he in obedience fo the Instructions of his superior officer he did not process the pay bill, in other words he did not perform his duties as instructed by the. appellant. That he Informed the same to the Admin. Assistant Audit Officer for short Admin. A.A.O) and the Admin. A.A.O suggested him to

prepare salary bill manually and Keep it In his custody until further instructions of the A.A.O (District Audit Officer) and accordingly he prepared manual bill in MS-Excel and kept it in his custody in order ta avoid any delay. Thereafter he and Admin A.A.O made several requests to the appellant/District Audit Officer who finally relented and instructed them fo process the pay bH) on 27,4.2023,

it is nextly stated that thereafter the said Junior Auditor Le. Mr. Paul Anil Raj started processing the pay bill and when he tried ta verify as to whether the changes in the salary of Senior Auditor Sri Murali Krishna was reflected, he. received an error message treating that regular pay roll will be enabled from 17" to 26" of the month and that he immediately informed the same to the appellant and also informed her through Whatsanp message and informed that the supplementary pay bi] has to be processed and 'that on 28.4.2023 he informed to the appellant that he has presented pay DIN in the supplementary pay roll period,

That on 04,8.2023 he received a call at 69.00am from the District Treasury Officer asking whether they were facing any difficulties with the staff of the District Treasury Office and if so to bring the same to his notice; that In reply, he informed that the administration is going very smooth and that the District Treasury Officer asked for the details of the Sub-Treasury Officer who is handling the bills. That on the same day at V122Zam, the Sub-Treasury. Officer (5.7.0) called him on phone and enquired as fo when he processed the pay bil for the month of Apri 2023 and he told her that he has not processed the bill and the same will be presented in the supplementary pay bill period between 6" and 16° of May 2023, to which he was told by the Sub Treasury Officer that the bill in the month of April 2023 is in C.F.NLS inbox and also asked him who is' Smt. R.Pacdmaia Rani {appellant} and he was informed that the bil was. processed by her and shared: a 'screen shot to him through WhatsApp

end as per the screen shot the DH was processed on 03.85.2023 with the ONO's login and i was authorized to Blometric and sent to the treasury for further process on 04.8. 2023. The said bI] was processed by the Sub Treasury Officer on 04.5, 2023 and the salary for the month of April 2023 were disbursed on 08.8.2023.. _

He would further relterate that he was unable to prepare bil! without the access of the District Audit Officer and without the knowledge of the drawing officer Le. appellant. And the whole process of pay bill will be done under the personal log in Pay Role Herb in poo log in only and the CFMS pay role, That on 01.6.2023 he along with the other staff of the office met the appellant in her chamber regarding the salary for the month of April 2023 and the appellant upon sesing them verted her anger to one of the senior auditors and hence all of them left the chamber. Thereafter the appellant is alleged to have surmmoned one of the senior audit officer by name Mr. K.Ranjit Kumar and informed hin that she will Hle @ police ease against them and make sure that all of them are put behind bars and hence the staff were scared and went on casual leave and met the Hon'ble Director in his office on the vary next day on 02.68.2023 to bring their problems to his notice. The Director has assured them that he would look in te the issue and promised to sort if aul in two days. Later he proceeded on casual leave for two days and he same to know that the appellant has preferred a complaint against them with the Women Protection Cell and marked copy of the same to the Hon'ble Director of State Audit and on knowing this he got terrified and continued to avall casual leave wu one B.Chandra Rao took charge as new District Audit Officer on og. 5. 2023. :

The statements prima facie appear to be self contradictory. in one breath he says he was directed not to prepare bil and accordingly he did nol Orepare the bil and in the same breath he goes on to say that he was advised by Admin. AAG to prepare the pay DIN manually and keep it with.

him and he did accordingly. Again he would submit that only after instructions on 27,4.2024 he started preparing DH. it is surprising that this Junior Auditor who apparently, according to his statement, is tasked with the duty of preparing the bil is, even according to his own statement started preparing the bls only on 284.2023, when it was his duty to prepare the bHis.

The said action prima facie would indicate negligence on his part. Even assuming that a wrong instruction or direction was issued by his superior, iti was his bounden duty to ensure that he performs his part of his duty and that apart there is no explanation as to why he did not bring it to the notice of the officers superior to the appellant, we assume probably to enable the lodging of the complaint on 01.5.2023. We do not see any other ground which deterred the Junior Auditor from intimating his superior officers, as he was well aware about the consequences of non preparation of the salary bills.

His other statement that they made a complaint te the Olrecter after they met him personally on 02.5. 2023, also appears to be incorrect, as the complaint had already been forwarded to the Director on 01.35.2023 itself,

What is of some intrigue is the role of the Regional Deputy Director and his comments and observations. The Regional! Deputy Director by a memo dated 03.5.2023 called: upon the appellant to subrnit her explanation. This appears. to be prior fo the appointment of the Joint Director to enquire into the state of affairs, but with the knowledge that the issue had already reached the Director and the Director had taken up the issue and had called upon the appellant to submit her explanation.

Our conclusion is based on the observations of the Regional Deputy Oirector in his jetter dated 08. §.2023 wherein in the unnumbered fifth paragraph and the penultimate paragraph which reads as under clearly. obliterates any further andquiry,

"dis fo submit thal she had sent a mall fo this office on 05.45.2023 vide reference ¢° cited, inwifeh, instead of submitting detailed remarks, she has just forwarded the same reply which was submitted by her to the Director of State Audit, AP, Mangalagiri, just By replacing the "to address", and aiso sot explained dre

reasons for delay in submission ofremarks fa the reference 3°

cifed as was instructed in the reference 3°" cited,

in ihe meanwhile amemo in DirMemo.No.Ov/Q/DSA/3023, OL03.05,. 2023 was issued by the Directorate on 03.05.2023 under a copy fo the RDO calling for her explanation and itis not know wheter she had submitted any explanation ar net sa far."

Thus, the Regional Deputy Cirector had knowledge about the proceedings inflated by the Director. In fact a reading of the above would reveal that the Regional Deputy Director has taken it as an affront to him for the reason that the appellant has merely forwarded the copies af the replies addressed to the Director by merely replacing the to address which wouk! imply that the Regional Deputy Director was also aware of the contents of the replies submitted by the appellant to the Director and despite this knowledge of the proceedings initiated by the Director, he proceeded to make scathing remarks against the appellant and submit the proceedings dated 08.59.2022 to the Director and therein virtually holding the appellant guilty on various grounds Le. deralicton of duties, creating havoc in 'the office, leading to mass casual leave of all ine staff members, non submission of remarks independently to the Regianal Deputy Director in. time and which is construed by him as lack of obedience to the higher authorities and so on. All these remarks, when he was well aware of the proceedings inilaied by the Director, prima facie gives 4 picture that the Regional Deputy Director was eager to gaint the appellant black and probably with the intention of influencing the decision making process of the Blrector. We are

constrained to assume, in view of the fact that the report by the Joint Director pursuant to the enquiry ordered by the Director was yet to be submitted. To compound 'matiers and the icing on the cake is the recommendation of the then Minister who has directed the Regional Deputy Director as under:

"i would like to inform you that Smit. R. Padmaja Rae, Assistant Audit --Officar, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram and District Audit Officer v'c of East Godavari District is known to me. As per the complaints received from aif comers against her from the public as welf as from her subordinate staff of her requires immediate attention from the addressed authority. ee |

in the fight of the above situation the individual Soi, . R. Padmaja Rani may be transferred fromthe present place to some

other place on Administrative Grounds positively." femphasis by Court! _

And as a co-incidence, the transfer orders came to be issued on $1.5.2023 and the grounds for transfer is "Administrative Grounds".

Another Interesting development that fs pertinent to be noted is the act of the staff going on mass casual leave and refusing to attend duties. Despite the fact that the salaries had been credited to their accounts on 05.68.5023 itself and appears that their demand was that the appellant ought to be transferred out of the office. Even the enquiry. ordered by the Director has not satiated their thrist. In this regard it is. pertinent fo note the report signed by the Incharge District Audit Officer L@. one who fook charge from the appellant. The letter addressed to the Regional Deputy Director copy marked to the Director reads as under:

Sub: Office Staff not attending fo requiar duGes ~ .

though salary for the month of April 2023 got adjusted ~ information Submitted ~ Regarding.

week.

Submitted,

With reference to the subject cited, His submitted that the staff members of this office have not been attending to their regular cuties since 02.05.2023 even fhough the salaries for the month of April 2023 got adjusted on 08.08.2023,

This is subsyted for kind information.

B.A.O, Copy submited to the Director of Stste Audit, Mangalagiri.

And it carries an endorsement 'please put up memo fo all the staff é explain as to why they are not attending to thelr duties' and signed on 08.68.2023. a :

The next document of relevance and having a bearing is a memo dated 08.68.2023 issued by the. Regional Deputy Director whereby the report of the incharge Deputy: Audit Officer is acknowledged and by the unnumbered 3° and 4" paragraphs, all the staff of the office have been called upon to submit thelr explanation as to why they are not attending duties and further they have been directed to submit their explanation within five days from the date of receipt of the memo falling which they would be facing action in accordance With the Rules

These are just a few facts which we thought would be necessary te appreciate the application |. A. No. 4 of 2024 for suspension of the order. -

Learned Government Pleader for Services would submit that the: report of the Regional Deputy. Olrector is not a parailel anquiry and AB, merely called upon the appellant to Submit her explanation as he was in. receipt of the complaint and that he waa not aware of the proceedings.

inidaled by the Director. .That the enquiry was necessitated as the. employees gol agitated an non-receipt of their salary on the first of May. 2029 self. That the appellant is. guilly of dereliction of duty and hence

(Gf account of her conduct and negligence, the transfer has been effected and that there is no other reason nor can any malafides can he attributed to the Regional Deputy Director.

Learned counsel representing the private respondent nas.5 ta 19 would contend that this Court is travelling beyond the pleadings and is venturing info a roving enquiry which is not supported by pleadings and that there is no ground made out to disbelieve the finding of the learned Single Judge regarding in paragraph nos.20, 21 and 22 in W.P.No.18492 _ of 2023. The said paragraphs reads as under:

20, The Division Bench of this Court in WA.No.325 of 2079 dated 75.10.2019 held thus:

"in cases of transfer, assigning a reason by the department is not necessary. is further to observe that interference in ire matter of transfer cay, be made if it is in violation of the statutory provisions of law, or tainted with mala fides ar when if is passed affecting service candition or by way of penalty."

27, in the case af hand, the petivioner, as discussed supra, after the bifurcation of districts, was allotted to East Godavari and further ordered fo act as the District Audit Officer in the newly formed district of East Godavari by proceedings dated 30.06.2022. fhe employees of the department made several complaints against the petitioner to the higher officials. in fact, the employees made a complaint fo ihe Superintendent of Police, East Godavari on OF.05, 2023, alleging harassment Sy the petitioner. The 2nd respondent ordered to inquire info the issue by appointing the Joint Director as an inquiry officer. The inguiry was conducted on 70.05.2023 and the report is awaited. .

#2. The petitioner is aware oF all these incidents including initiation of inquiry, however, for the reasons best known to her, did not disclose the same in the affidavit. Thus, the petitioner

suppressed the material fact and approached this Court. Persons goproaching court by suppressing material fects is not entitled to

equitable relief,

Piscing reliance on "paragraph no.20, learned counsel would submil that the State or the competent authority need not assign any reason for transfer and that being the settied position, the question of

judicial review of the order would not arise.

We are constrained to reject the arguments at the threshold itself, The argument that no reason be assigned is merely one part of the

observations.

The further reading of the paragraphs would show that a transfer can be questioned if i is in violation of statutory provisions or H it is tainted with malafides. The developments in the case as recorded above would clearly Indicate a case, of the latter nature. The question that Stares at us and begs an answer is whether the statement of a staff, whe. had the audacity to defy even the directions of the head of the Department ieelf and the authoriiy Incharge should be taken and accepted at face value'. a

The settled positien in law i is that no transfer can be made punitive Le. employes cannot be transterred either as a measure to penalize him or her or lo make way to favour a candidate without assigning reason,

is also the settled. position and iis no more res integra that a, transfer cannot be on the diktat of a Pollticlan/Minister, which prima facie appears to be the case on hand in view of the letter by the ther sitting Minister. it Is also interesting to note that the letter by the. Minister, who is not the Minister concerned and whoa was only the. Minister for Roads and Buildings is addressed to the Regional Deputy Oirector and not te the Director. in the usual course communications are addressed to the head oF the Departments. But the letter appears to

have been addressed directly 1 to the authorily competent to transfer the

appellant. The fatter also records that complaints have been received from al corners of public. What is the role of the public in a State Accounts Audit Office is yet to be made known to us or what is the nexus between the State Audit Department and the general public is yet fo be made known to us. interestingly the letter also records that the complaint is also received from her subordinate staff.

The sound and fury created is itself a cause for this Court suspect motives behind the impuagned transfer. Though i is claimed that the so called star witness Paul Anil Ral was instructed not to prepare the hills, he remains coy and silent uN the first of May and on which date he becomes a leading participant in taking forward the complaint against the appellant,

is also interesting ¢ to 'note that various {according to his Own statement) senior officers have inferacted with him regarding the 85 called turmoil or in the words of Regional Deputy Director 'havoc' said to have been created by the appellant, i ig even more interesting to note his claim, that the Sub Treasury Q Meer who interacted with him did not even know who the District Audit Officer was. The protests, the mass casual leave even after the salaries have been credited to their accounts prima facie points at something more sinister than appears to the naked eye.

Nextly, we proceed to appreciate the findings of the learned single Judge in paragraph no.2t wherein the learned single Judge has recorded that the employees. of the Department have made several complaints against the appellant to the higher officials and that the employees have also lodged. complaint to the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District on 04.5.2023 alleging harassment by the appellant, The learned single Judge has further observed that the enquiry directed by the concerned respondent was conducted on:

10.5.2023 and the report is awaited, The observations of the learned:

single Judge prima facie appears contrary to the statement of the said JA.0 who has stated that it is the appellant who lodged complaint to the women cell and nowhers, is there even a whisper of multinie complaints about the appellant. Be that as it may, we did not Intend to pronounce finaly about the observations at this interim stage.

in paragraph no.22, learned single Judge has faulted the appellant for not having disclosed the Initiation of the enquiry in her affidavit and the same is canstrued as suppression of material fact while approaching the Court and is concluded by the learned single Judge as suppression thereby disentitling the petitioner for any equitable relief, Prima fecie this view does not appear to be supported by facts. The fact remains that the Enquiry Report, by the doint Director was not furnished to the netitionerfappellant.

We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge and the few facts noted here in above have not been brought to the notice of the learned single Judge probably as the respondent/State and the private respondents deemed Ht not necessary fo Bring ff fo the notice of the learned single Judge. i cannot at this stags be concluded, that there has been a suppression of facts by the respondants. .

That apart the issue of whether this Court can travel beyond the pleadings iS an issue that is wall seltied by the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has Hime and again held that the primary objective of the Courts is to sort out and establish the truth as reported in the Judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in between A. Shanmugam vs. Anya Kshatriva Rajakula Vamsathu Macalaya Nandhavana Paripalanal Sangam represented by As President and Others {2093} 8 Supreme Court Cases S30} wherein it is recited that :

4, The entire janrsey of ¢ judee is to discern the tratk from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties. Truth ix the basis af justice delivery

system, Tus Court ir Dalin Singh y. State of LLP. and Others Hey 2 &OC

ii4 observed that truth constitates an integral part of the justice delivery system whick was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used % feel proud fo fell truth in the carts irrespective of the CONICET HERCLS, ffawever, post-independence period Ras seen drastic changes in our value

SESTEH.

as. Phis Caurt in Maria Marsarida Sequeria Fernandes (supra) had an

occasion fo deal with the same aspect According te us, observations in paragraphs 3] te S2 are absolute ly germane as these paragraphs deal with relevant cases which have enormaus bearing an the facts of itis case, so

ihese paragrapis are reproduced hereunder:

"SE. de this unfortunate litigation, fhe Court's seriaus endeavour has ia be fo find out where in fact the psithe lies. The truth should be the guiding star

in the entire judicial process.

Ja. Fruth alone has to be the foundation af justice. The entire judicial system Has been created only to discern and Sind out the real truth. FRIES at aif levels have fo seriousty 2 gage themselves in the journey of discovering

the truth, That is their mandate, obligation and bounden duty.

43. dustice spsten: will acquire credibility anly when people will be convinced

that justice is hesed on the foundation of the truth.

34, dn Mohanial Shamji Soni vy. Union of India $993 Sapp (2) SCC 271, this Cewrt observed that in 'such @ Situation a guestion that arises for courideration ix whether the presiding officer of a Court should simpiy sit ax a mere uMipire at a contest between two parties and declare at the end of the combat eho has wor and: wie dias lost or is there not any legal duty of kis. own, ladependent of the parties, fe take an active role in the proceedings in, Jinding the truth anid administering dastice? Hf is a well accented and settled principle frat a Caurt must discharge 8s statutory fanctions-whether

discretionary or obligatory-according to law in dispensing justice because

is the daty of a Court nat only to do Justice but alse fe ensure that justice is being dome,

33. Whar people expect is that the Court should discharge Ns abligatian te Jind ext where G1 fact the truth thes. Hight from ivcention of the judicial apstem & kay been accented thag discovery, vindication and estahlivR arent ay irudh are the aan: purposes underlying the existence of the courts af pruxtice.

cé. dx Ritesh Tewarl and Another v. State af Utter Pradesh and Others

(G10) 10 SCC 67? this Court repreduced often quoted quotation which reads as upader:

"Every iriad is a veyage of discovery in which truth is the guest"

Jf, Fis Court obverved that the pawer is ta he exercised wih an objec? fa subserve the cause of justice and public teterest and for getting the evidence

in aid of a just decision aud to uphold the geuth,

38. Lord Denning, in the case of fones v. National Caal Beard F293 77 2 O8

$3 has observed Ghonts

"in ihe system of inial thatowe evolved fy this coumry, Se Judge sis ie fear and determine ihe issues raised by the parties, not to conduct an investivadion or examination om dekalf af the seciety at large, ax dappens, we dedieve, 28 sorte Joreign countries."

38, Certuiniy, she above, is nav irae uf ihe Indine Judicial System, A fudge ix ihe Indian System has to be regarded as failing to exercise his harisdictian and thereby discharging kis judicial duty, if in the guise af remaining neural, be apts ip remain Passive to ihe proceedings Aefore Ale, He has #8 aiways keep ix aunad shat "every itiad is a vovage of discovery i which truth is the guesr". in order to bring an recard the relevant fact, he has to play an active rales ne doubt Noein ihe hounds of the statutorily defined procedural

fone.

40, Lord Denning farther observed in Se said case of Jones (supra) that

"e's all very well to paint justice Blind, Aut she does better withent @

bandage reund her eyes. She skouid be blind indeed to favenr or prejudice,

buf clear to see which way Hes Hee truth..."

41. World aver, modern procedsral Codes are increasingly relying an full disclasure by fre parties. Managerial powers af the Judge are bebig

deployed to ensure that fre scope af the factyal controversy is minintuzed,

#2. Jn civil cases, adherence te Section 30 CPC would alse help in ascertaining the truth. Fo seems thar this provision which. aught ta be Prequently used is raredy. pressed ia service by our judicial afficers and Judges. Sectian 30 CPC reads ay under:

30. Power to erder discavery and the Hke. --~ Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court say, at any time either of Ns awn wEHIOH ar an fe auplication of any party, -

(a) make such orders as may be wecexsary or reasonable in all muitiers relating fp the delivery and answering af interragatorics, the admission of documents and facts, and the discavery, iaspection, production, impounding

and return of documents or ather material abjeets producthie as evidence;

{b) issue sumunons te persons whose attendance {s required elther to give

evdence or to praduce documents or secf ather objects as aforesaid; i} order any fact to be praved by apidavit

43. "Satyameva Jayate" (Literally: "Truth Stands Davincible") is a mantra from the ancient scripture Mundaka Upanishad. Upon fadependence of dudia, i was adopted as the national motte of india, H is inscribed in Devanagari script at the base of the national emblem. The meaning of full

waaira is as follows:

"fruth alone titmphs: net falschoad. Pfrough truik the divine path ix Spread aut by whieh the sages whose desires have heen completely Fulfilled, -

reach where that sapreme treasure of Trath resides."

44, Matinusth Committee on Judicial Reforms Reavily relied oa ihe fact that in discovering Guth, ike judges of all Courts need ty play an active role, The Coanndice abserved thus:

Soseconccone J tte adver Sarid syrtent fraught is supposed fo emerge from the respective versions of the fac is presented &y the prosecution and ihe defence before a neutral judge. The Judge ucts Hke an wnepire fy see whether the Brasccution fas beer able te prave ite cave bepand ressenaiie douls. The Stave discharges the obligation fo protect Hye, Hberty and praperty of tte cHizers dy faking suitable preventive and pundive measures which aise serve the object of preventing private retribution so exsential for maintenance of peace and law and order in the secieg? dev and gives the Aenefit of doubt fa the accused. Ff is ihe parties thet determine the scape af dispute and decide largely, autonomously and in a selective manner on Are evidence that they decide to present ta the court, The mia is aral, continuous and confranfational The parties HSE Cress-cramnaion of witnesses se nuderming the opposing case wd Yo discover information ihe other side Aas net drought out The judge in Ais anxiety go mainiain his position ef neutrality sever jakes any initiative to discover tenth, Ne docs not correct the aberrations ie fre investigation or in tke matter of production of evidence before CONF..." 245 "The Adversarial System lacks dprasion Aocanse if kas ne lofty ideal te inspire. if fas not cen entrusted with a positive duty fe discever iruth as in the Inguisiterial System. When the investigation is perfunctory or ineffective, Judges seldom take any initiative t remedy ike situation, During ihe trial, the Judges do not Bother if relevent evidence ix Hof produced and plaps @ passive role as he Bas ne duty to search for PME." 2 IGS. Truth belie the cherished ideal and etkax af India, pursuit uf dratle should be the guiding Star of te Criminal Justice System. Far

justice to be dene truth musi prevail.

df is truth that must protect the inaocent and if is Gruth that must be the basis

fe punsé the guilty. Trathe is the very soul of justice. fherefere truth shouted

become the ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can he achieved by satuiorlly mandating the caurts te become active seekers of truth. UH is of seminal importance to inject vitality into our systess if we have te regain the lost confidence af the peaple. Concern for and duty to seck trath should aor became the limited concern of the courts. If should become ihe puraeenrine

duty af everyone to assistike court in Ns quest fur truth.

45, ie Chandra Shashi « Anil Kamar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 to enable

fhe Courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, tose wito induige in immoral acts like perjury, pre- variation and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, withaut which # would not be possible jor any Court to administer justice in the trae sense and te the satisfaction af tose whe approack & in the flope that truth would ultimately prevail. People waild Rave faith in Cour, fv hen they would find tat truth alone triumphs

int Caserts.

46. Truth has been foundation of other judicial systems, suck as, the United

States of America, the 0 nited Aingdom and other countries.

49. Ia James v. Giles et al, v, State af Maryland 386 U.S. 66 (1967) 87, S.Ct.

793, the US Supreme Court, in rulings on fhe conduct of prosecution in suppressing evidence favourable fo the defesdaniy and use of perjur ed iestimeany held Meat such rules existed for @ purpose ax a@ nece sary component of fhe search for rat and justice Hit judges, like prosecutars must undertake, If foviher eid thal the State'y obligation under the Due Process Clause "is not to convict, but to see that so far as possible, truth

emerges."

48. The obligation to pursue truth has been carried te extremes. Thus, iy United States v, I. Lee Havens 446 U.S, 620, 100 S1.CL1912, it was dreld that the government may se dilegally obtained evidence to impeach «

defendant's frandufent Statements during cross-examination for the par pase

of seeking Justice, for ite purpose of "arriving at fhe truth, which is @

fardamental goal of aur leg ued gpsfer\

48. fustice Cardoze in fis widely read and appreciated dbnek "The Neture ef the Judicial Process" discusses the role of ihe judges. The relevant part is

reproduced as sHder:~

"fRere has been a certain lack af candour," "in much of the discussion of the Sheme foF jatses* amanifp), or rather perhaps is the refusal to discuss

8, as if jadges must lose respect and confidence by the rentinder that ghey are subject to disean limitations." f de neal doubt the grandeur af conception witich ifs them: inte ihe rediinn af pure reason, hove and beyand the sweep of perturbing and deflecting forces. None the less, i there is anpiiing of reality in my analysis of the judicial process, they de nat stand aloof on these chill and distant heighix; and we shall sot Relp the cause af truth by acHns

and speaking as if trey da."

3a Aharon Sarak, President af israeli Supreme Court from $995 to 2006

takes fhe pasiien iar:

"Por issues te which stability is actually more Gupartant thare the substance af the sedities ~ and there are many such cases ~ J will join the majority, witha? restating scy dissent ene 'wh line. Only when my dissenting opinion reflects an issue that is central for ie ~ that goes to the core of suy role as a fudge ~ will F set capititate, and will 2 comfinne fo resiate ayy dissenting opinion: "Truth er stability > fradh is preferable", | "Ga the contrary, public confidence means raling according te the law and according t9 the judge's conscience, whatever tle attitude of the public map be, Public confidence means giving expressian ta history, aot to B yerer ie,

Public confidence is ensured ay the recognition that the judge is doing justice withia the frame work af ihe law avd its provisions. Judes must act ~

inside and uutside the court ~ in a manner that preserves pralic confidence.

in them, Thep suust saderstand that judging is net merely a Je8 buf a wap af life. ff is a way af &fe Sat dees not iactude the Parsud of material wealiit or publicity: if is a way of life based on spiritual wealth: if is a wap of life thet

includes an edbjective and impartial search for trath."

Si, da the administration of jastice, ulges and lawyers play equal rales. Like judges, lawyers also. must ensure that iruth friumiphis in the

administration of justice.

S32, fruth is the foundation ap justice. If must be the endeavour af all the judicial officers and judges to ascertain truth in every matier and na stone should be leff unturned it acieving this object. Courts ais? give greater eniphasis on the veracity ay pleadings and decuments in order to ascertain

the teeth."

34, Experience reveals that « large number af cases are fled on false claiiis or evasive pleas are introduced by the defendant to cause delay in the adntinistration of justice and this can be suffieiemty taken care ap a? ihe

Courts adopt realistic approach granting restitution.

33. This Court in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2823) 8

SOC 249 (af which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the jadgmend in paragraph 32 (C, D and G) of the pludgeient dealf with the aspect af imposition of actual or realistic costs which are equally relevant for this case

reads as under:

"C. imposition of actual, realistic or proper casts and or ordering Prasecution would ga a long way in contredling te tendency of introducing false pleadings and foreed and Jabricated documents by the lHdeants, imposition af heavy costs weld alse control nHRecessary adjournments dy the parties. fn appropriate cases the cauris may cansider ordering Presecution atherwise if nay not be possible io mainiain purity and sanctity

of judicial proceedings.

BD Fhe Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic appreack in erantiag mesne profls. The Court anus? carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne prayits,

i. The principle of restiistion de fully applied in a pragmatic manner in

order to de real and substantial justice"

37 Phis Court iv anather importand case in fadian Council far Exvire-

Legal detion vy. Union of ladia and Others C011) 8 SCC 16] fof which one

af us, Bhandari, J. wes the author ef tie judement) Bad an occasian ta deal wih the concep! of restitution. The relevant paregraphy af that Hulement

dealing with relevant judgments are reproduced hereunder:-

£93, PRis Court ix Grindlays Bank J iaedkted y. income fax Ofcer, Caleutte (F880) 2 SOC I9) observed as unger s

x of Here passing suck oriters fhe High Court draws on is isherent power to nuke all such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice befween the parvies. The interests: ap justice require that anp aadeserved ar unfuly advantage gained by a party invoking ue jurisdiction af fhe court, by the mere circumstance that bes initiated @ proceeding in the caurt, must Be newradised. Phe simple fact of the lasttution of itigation by self should not

be permitted to confer an advantase az the 3 pariy respansiine for & ...° Be vp

i349. fn Sam Srishag Verme ane thers v. State af LLP and Others (1992) 2 SCC G20 this Coury observed as HRGEP O

"tke 3? operators including te appellanés' grivate operators Rave beer running eir stave ¢ arriages by blatant abuse af the process of the court by delaying the hearing as directed in feevan Nath Bali's case and the High Canrt cartier terete. Ax a fact on the expiry of the initial period of grant afer Sept 29, 2989 they lost the right fo obtain renewal or fo ply Geir vehicles, as this Cart declared the sefleme to be operative. However, jy

sheer abuse af the pracess of fan they are continuing ta pis their velicles

pending hearing of the objections, This Court in Grindlavs Bank fd vs

iucume-tax Officer - fi 996) 2 SOC I9) heb that the High Court while

exercising Hy pawer under Article 226 the interes? of frstice requires thad wiy undeserved or anfeir advantage gained by @ party invoking the jurisdiction of the caurtumust be neutralised. He was furtier held that Gre institution af the litigation by it should not be permitted to confer an srfair advantage on the party responsible for i& dn the Heht of drat law and in view

of ike power under Article 282¢7} af the Consiitution this Court, while

exercising Hs jurisdictian would do complete justice and aeutralive the unfair advantage gained Ay the 36 uperators including the appellants in dragging the litigation to ran the stage carriages on the approved raute or area or portion thereof and forfeited thelr right ta hearing of the objections

Jiled by them to the draft scheme dated Feb, 26, $859, .,.°

i953, This Court in Kavitr Trehan vs Batsara Hygiene Products (7993) §

SOC 388 ebserved as under :- oe

"The jurisdiction to make 5 restitution is infierent in every court and will he exercised whenever the Justice of the cause demands. ff wifl be exerc: ised under inhteren? powers where the case did nat strictly fail within the anghiz Section 144. Section J $4 opens with ihe words "WVhere and in so far as a decree or an order is varied or reversed ist any appeal, revision or pihter proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit instituted for the PRPHOSE, wos Phe instant case HEY not siricely fail within the terms of Section a4:

but the aggrieved party in sich a case can appeal fe the larger and general Ptreers of resiiggtion juherent in every court."

136. This Cast in Marshall sans & Co. OO Lid v. Sahil Oretransy (Pi Lid

gud Anather (1999) 2 SCC 333 ebserved ax under -

"From the narration of the ; facts, though i appears fe as, prima facie, that a vecree in favour af the appellant is not being executed far some reason or ike other, we do not think it proper at this stage fo direct ie respondent to deliver the possession to the appellant since She ssit Sled by the respusndenk

is sl pending, If is true that at proc vedings are dragged for a long time an ane

count or the other and on occasion become highly feckrical accenmpanicd by unending proficiiy, at every stage providing a fegal trap ta ie emwary. Because af ie delay atserapalous parties fo he proceedings fake wndus advantage and Persor whe is de wrovefal possession draws deligh? i: delay in disposal of the cases hy jaking sndue advantage of procedural complications. Hf is also knawn fact that after obtaining a decree fer possession of inmovable property, Hs execution fakes fong dime. in such x siwaton for protectne Gre interest of Nadgment credifer, if is Recessary © pass appropriate order so.ihat reasonaile mesne pray which may Be equivalent fa the market ren? is paid ay @ persan whe is holding aver me property. fa appropriate CASES, Coaré may apocin'g Recelver amd direct ihe person whe is holding over the praperty fo act as an agent of the Receiver with a direction to deposit the revalty amount fixed dy the Receiver or pass suck offer order whick may sce? the interest of justice. This may prevent purther iufury ta ihe plain in whose favour decres is passed and to protect

ihe property including farther alienation."

i@%, fx Padmawar v. Hariian Aewak Senph ~ CM Ofaia) Node? af 2082

decided by the Delhi heh Court on 64 12008, the court held as ander:

"The case af Sand shows that srivelous defences and Frivolous litigation is a cufcnlated venture invelving Ro risks siuation. You have only to engage professionals fo profong the iifigation so ax te deprive the rights of a person and enjey the fruits of legalities, f consider that in such cases where Court Jinds that using the Courts as # tool, a ligant has perpetuated iegalities ar has perpetuated an ilegal possession, the Coun suis! Gupose casts an suck iviganis witch shasid Se equal fe ihe benefits derived by the iigant and harm and deprivation suffered bp the rightful person so as te check the frivolous Hdgaetion and prevent the people fram reaping a sich harvest! of illegal acts thraueh the Court, One af the aims af every judicial system has te be to discourage unjust enrichment using Conris as a toad The costs imposed dy the Courts sansye in all cases should be the real costs equal to

deprivation suffered by the righifid persau."

i38 We anprove the (findings of tke High Ceurt af Delhi ix the aforementioned case. |

i989, The Casrt alse stated "Before parting with this cave, we consider if ReCessary io Ghserve Mrart ane of the main reasony for over-flawing of cour dockets is the frivolous Hugation in which the Courts are engaged by the iitiganty and witich is dragged as long as possible. Even if these iHtigants ultimately foose the lis, they hecome the real victors and have the last faneh, Yhis class of people whe perpetuate ifegal acts ay obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts minis! be made fe pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made. by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and aise must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in Jrdiciary can aniy be sustained if the persons on the right side af the law do net feel that even if they keep fisiting for justice in the Court and witimatel'y win, fey would turn out fo bea foo! since winning a case after 20 er 34 vears would make wrongdeer as real gainer, whe Rad reaped the benefits for all these years. Thus, # becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such HFONGHOLTS are discouraged af every Sep and even if ther succeed in prolonging the iitigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long lidgation. Despite setiled legal pasitiens, the obvious wrong doers, ase ane after another fer of judicial review meciunism ay a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time guined is the real gain. This

situation must be redeemed by the Courts".

shu. Against this judgment, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No 291972008

was preferred te this Court, The Canrt passed fe following order:

"We Rave heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We Nad se ground to interfere with the well-cansidered judgment passed by the High

Court, The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed."

288. is Avarshali sons and Comoany 4) Limtied v. Sail Oretrans (7)

Lusited and Another (1999) 2 8CC 323 this Court in para 4 af the fudgurent

observed ax wader

'ed is true thar proceeding: es are drageed for a long Gime 8a one count ar fhe offer and, on ovcasion, hecome Aiphiy fecheical accompanied ay #Rending prodixity af every stage providing a fegal trap fo fre seneary. Because af ihe delay, wnse PEpWLORS parties fo Me proceedings take undue advantage and @ person whe is in wrongfal passession draws delighi! in delay in disposal of the cases by taking andue advantage of procedural cumpiications. df is aise a &neown fact that aver oftaining a secree for poxsession of inunovaile property, 8 execution lakes a lang Were, in suck & suNatHon, far PKOSCHAR the iuterest af dre jadgment-orediior, 1 is secessary fo gass appropriate orders sp that reasonable stesne profié which say be equivalent ia the marker rent is paid &y a person who ix holding ever the Braperty. in apprapriaie cases, fhe court map apooint a Recelver and dircct ike person who is holdlie aver the Property fo act ay an agent of ihe Receiver witht a direction Yo deposit the royalty ammount fived by the Receiver or pass such ather order which may meet the interest of justice. This may prevent further injury te the plainti{Y in whase Prvour the decree is passed

and te protect the property including further alienation, ..."

oes fe Orsenk Mathal aud Others w OO Abdal Skadir (2003) J SCC 378

fis Court refferates the legal posifion thar the stay granted by the C eure does not confer a right upon 'a party and if is granted alwaps subject to the final result of the manier inthe Conrt and at the risk and casts of the party obtaining fhe step. fier 'the dismissal, af the Hs, the party concerned is relegated fo the position wih ich existed prior te the )Ming of the petition iv ile Court whick Bad granted ike stay. Grant of say does not axfomuaticalty

amount fo extension of @ xtatutary preiection.

Sie Pius Caurt in Saeth Eastern CoalNelds Limited » State of MOP. and

ofhery (2003) § SOC 6a8 on examining the princinle af restitution in para 26 of the judgment observed as rider:

"in our apinion, the principle af restitution takes care of this subnuissian. The word "restitution" i US. etymological sense means restoring te a party on ihe modification, variation or reversal of a decree er order, what has been lost te him in execution ef decree or arder af the court ar in direcy

consequence of & decree or order fsee Zafue Khan vy. Roard of Revenue, UP

~ (1984) Supp SCC S05) fn law, the term "restitution" ts used in three Senses: (0) return or restoration af seune specific thing fa its right{nl owner or status; (3 compensiition for benefits derived from a wrong done ta another; aad {Hi) compensation oer reparation for the floss caused to

arofer, "

di. The Court in para 2& of the aforesaid judgment very carefualty mentioned Gat the Htigation should not furn inte @ fruitful iedustry and observed as under: a

ee cos ooadddivarion pray men inte a fruitful indastry. Though Utigation is Ha? gambling vet tere is an element af chance in every fitigation. Unscrupulons litigants may feel encouraged io approach the courts, persuading the court te pass interlocetory orders favourable fo then dy making Gut a priv fucie case when the issues are yet fo be heard and determined on merits cased if ihe concep af restitution ix excluded fram application io interin order . then the iifigant would stand te gain by swallowing the benefits plelding out of the interim order even though ihe batts ax beer fost at the end. TRix cannat be ceuntenanced We are, therefare, of the opinion that the successful party finally held entitled fo a relief axsessable in terms of maney at the end of ite Higation, is entitled ie be compensated by award of interest at @ suitable reasonable rate jor ie period for which the interim: order of the court withiolding the release ef

money hed remained in onerotinn,™

2i2. Fhe Court in ihe aforesaid fudement afse observed that nace the

doctrine of restitution is attracted, the Interest is efien a sermal relief sivex

in restitution, Such interest is not controlled by the provisians of the daterest

Act af 1839 or 2978,

443. de a relatively recent judgment of this Court in Aimarice? Sineh and

Gihers ¥. Devi Ratan and Others (2016) § SCC 41? the Court in para i? of

ise judgment shserved as under:

"Ne iipant can derive any heneflt fran: mere pendency of case in a court of ime, as the interim erdex always merges in the Anal order to be passed in ihe case and if ihe writ petition is sitimately dismissed, the interim order stands nadlified axtomatically. A pares cannot G¢ allowed to fake any benefit of its ows wrongs Pp geting a interim order and thereafter Alame the court, The fact frat the writ is ford, ubtimatety, devoid of any sierit, shines rat a frivolous wri petition Aad beer Sled. The maxim actus curiae meninene pravabi, which naeans teat fhe act of the court shall prejudice ne one, becomes applicable § iy suck a cuse, dr such a fact sfuating the cour? is under an obligation fo undo the "prong dove te a party bp she wef of the court. Thas, any sudeserved ar uafisir advantage gained by a party iwoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutratived, ay the insitution af itigation canna be permitted te ceafer any advantage on a suitor from delayed action

bp Se act of the cauré oc cP

2S. in consanance with die concept of restitution, 1 way observed that courts should be carefil aud pass an order neufraiting the effect af aff censequentia' orders passed i in parswance of the interim orders passed dy the court, Such express directions mtay be secessarp fo check the rising trend ameng the ileants to secure the relief as ae interim measure and fren avoid adiudication an merits, a

#if. in consonance with the p pe vincinle of cguily, justice and poed conscience ftdges should ensure sheet the egal process is net abused by the iiguats in

any manner The court should never permit a Higant te perpetuate legality

by abusing the legal process. if is the bounden duty of the caurt te ensure thet dishonesty end any attempf ta abuse the legal process must de effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is ae wrongfaé, wnaitiorized or sithust gatn for anyone Ay the abuse of the Pracess of Me casréi, Gre weup te curh tris tendency is fo tmpase reafistic casts, which the respondent er the defendant has in fact incurred in arder te defend dimself in the legal proceedings. The courts would be July justified even ininosing punitive costs where legal pracess has been abused. Ne one should he permitted fo nse ihe jrsdicial process for earning undeserved gains or unjust proftts. The court must effectively disconrage fraudulent, unscrupulous and

dishonest Htivation,

aiv, The court's constant endeavour must be te ensure that Everyone gels fast and fair treatmens. The court wile rendering justice must adopt a Bragmatiec approach and in uppraprigte cases realistic costs and compensation be erdered in order te dixceurage dishonest litigation. Phe abject and true meaning of the concep! of restigian cannot be achieved ar accomplished sniess the courts adopt a prapriatic approach in dealing with

fhe cares,

28. This Court in a very recent case Ramrameshwari Devi and Ofhers He

Nirmaia Devi aud Others 20116) Seale 677 had an eccasion to deal with

Similar questions of law regarding imposition af realistic costs and restitution. Que of us (Bhandari, J) was the authar of the judgment, HY was

observed in that case as under:

"While imposing costs we have te take inte consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants ar the respondents Rad fo actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts, We have te alsa broadly take inte consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and ather miscellaneasus expenses which have to he incurred towards drafine ard filing af the caunter affidavit, wiscellaneess charges towards typing,

Photocopying, court fee ete. The other facter whick should not be forgatien

while Enposing costs is for Row fong the defendanis er respandents were - compelled ie contest and defend Ue Ungation ue various courts. The appedignts in ihe instant. case have harassed te respondents te the iff for four decades in 2 totally j frivolous and dishonest fRigation in varions courts. fhe appellants ave alse wasted Padicial Sere of the various courts far fhe

faxé 40 pears."

43, On the facts of the present case, following principles emerge:

i, dt is the bounden duty of the Court to uphold the truth and do justice.

3. The ulfinate object af the judicial praceedings is to discern ihe truth and de fastice. His inperative that pleadings and all ather presentations before

the cour should be futhful .

S. #8 is the Sounder obligation af the Court ie neutredize any anfust and sr

undeserved Sunetik or advantage abfained ay abusing ike judicial process.

Prima facie the contention that the Court is indulging in a roving enquiry at the interim stage and this Court cannot travel beyond and 'cok into the records and ought to look Into the pleadings alone to determine the Hs does nol-.appeal to us. We deem it appropriate to reserve the same for consideration at the stage of final disposal of the appeal,

We have perused the order of the learned single Judge and prime facie conclude as under:

The conclusion that the. -patitioner has suppressed about the enduiry report, in our prima facie opinion appears to be Incorrect as the capy of the repart which is placed before this Court today would revea! that no copy has been even marked to the appellant much less forwarded to her. That apart, prima facie 1 appears that as per the transfer guidelines, officer of the cadre in which the appellant is, are entitied fo a minimum of fvo years of stay and that the transfer effected on 31.5.2025 is a premature transfer, Apart from a bald statement, that it

is for administrative reasons, no reasons are recorded as to why the appellant is required to be transferred prematurely and contrary to the guidelines ag contained in.G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 17.58.2023. According to paragraph no.S of the said guidelines which relates to Principles of Transfers and Postings. Even for a request transfer an employee ought to have completed two years of service in a State in the case of appellant the transfers are sought to be effected as a punitive measure and at the instance of her subordinates. This in our prima facie opinion constitutes

a violation of the law governing the subject.

it is also interesting to note that the letter addressed by then Minister has been produced by the private respondents along with their application for impleadment. Whether at all, the said application could have been entertained, itself is doubtful, Insofar as a complainant in the realm of service jurisprudence is concerned, he steps into the shoes of a witness and prima facie does not have a focus standi to independently agitate or participate In proceedings inflated by the aggrieved officer, ie. challenging any proceedings of the competent authority or disciplinary authority. oe

For all the above reasons we are of the considered opinion, the appellant has made out the case for grant of interim relief as prayed for,

Accordingly this interlocutory application is allowed for the

following reasons:

1. The transfer being premature is contrary to the guidelines.

2. The order of transfer, prima facie appears to be at the behest of the then Political Bosses, i.e. the then Minister, unconcerned with the appellant's Department.

3. The actions of the Regional! Deputy Director does not inspire confidence in the Court, as his attempts appear to be made with the intention of influencing the outcome.

4 The action of the star witness, Paul Anil Raj and the other atafl appears to be "Orcheatrated". . .

| For the above prima facié reasons, the impugned order in the Writ Patition shall stands stayed. The appellant shall be reinstated fo te past of District Audit Officer, Ofo District Audit Office, State Audi, Ralamahendravaram, Fast Godavari District, before the next date of

hearing. The official respondents shall report compliance.

Copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry fo the Respondent

nos.2 and § by way of e-mail. - | | ' : EN)

- "ent ESTE _ TRUE COPY! _gggrion OFFICE For eats Ta,

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati | ~ : . .

% The Special Finance Secretary io Government, Finance and Planning

Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Andiva Pradesh Secretarial, Velagapudi, Amaravaihl, Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh. (by Spacial Messenger} 7 .

3, The Director, Directorate of State Audit, Andhra Pradesh, Mangelagin Guntur District, Email: [email protected] (Addressoes by Special Messenger/E.Mail) . .

4. The Regional Deputy Director, State Audit, Zone I, Eluru, Eluru District

Email [email protected], rid airigrecdifimell.com (by Email)

pea

The Oletict Audit Officer, State Aucht, Ralamahneravaram, cast Godavari District, we

8. G. Vara Frasad, o/o Lat 6 Prabhakar Rac, Aged 43 years, Qce Senior Auditor, Ofo. The District Audit Officer, State Audit,

Rajamahendravaram, Pact Godavari District

vod

40.

14,

18.

M Raja, S/o. Late Jesudanam, aged 44 years, Ofo. The District Audit Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District.

Gh Mithravinda, Do. Ch. Venkata Rao, aged 47 years, O/o. The District Audit Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District, K Surya Kumari, Dyo. K Suryanarayana, aged 40 years, Ofo. The District Audit Officer, State Audit, Ralamahendravaram, East Godavari District. |

K Bharathkondaraju, Sio. K Soma Sekhar Varma aged 35 years , O/o. The District Audit Officer, State Audit, Raiamahencravaram, East Godavari District. |

BY. V. Satyanarayana, Sfo P. Krishna, aged 45 years, Ofo. The District Audi Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District

.K Ranjith Kumar, S/o. K. Satyanarayana, aged 46 years, O/o. The

District Audit Officer, State Audit, Ralarnahendravaram, East Godavar! District, i

.RSV Bheemeswara Rao, S/o Gangajalam, aged 43 years, Ofo. The

Uistrict Audit Officer, Stete Audit, Ralamahendravaram, East Godavari District a

.8 Bhima Sankar, S/o. B.B. Krishna, aged 42 years, Ofo. The District

Audi Officer, State Audit, Ralarnahendravaram, East Godavari District,

. K Deepak, S/o. KM. Luther Paul, aged 43 years, Ofo. The District Audit

Officer, State Audit, Rajartahendravaram, East Godavari District.

.A Vijaya Durga, Dio. A: Nageswara Rao, aged 44 years, O/o. The

District Audit Officer, State Audit, Ralamahendravaram, East Godavari. District.

_Ch Murall Krishna, , Sio. Satyanarayana aged 48 years , O/o. The