Telangana High Court
The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs T.Satyanarayana, Extension ... on 18 January, 2023
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Pulla Karthik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 6618 of 2009
Between:
1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal SEcretary,
Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad.
2 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj & rural Development
Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Himayathnagar,
Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER(S)
AND
1 T.Satyanarayana, Extension Officer (Panchayat Raj & Rural
Develoment) (Retd) Nadigudem Mandal,
Nalgonda District.
2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nalgonda, Nalgonda
District.
3 The Mandal Parishad Development officer, nandigudem, Nalgonda
Disgtrict.
4 The Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Government of India,
Lakidikapul, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be
pleased to to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records relating to the orders of
the Hon'ble A.P. Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.858/2008
dated 26.11.2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and
quash the same and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II
Counsel for the Respondent No.:
The Court made the following :
ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED)
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order-dated
26.11.2008 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad in O.A.No. 858 of 2008, by virtue of which, the Tribunal
declared that the departmental enquiry initiated against the applicant shall
be treated as non-est in the eye of law on the ground of not finalizing the
disciplinary proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant before the Tribunal
while working as Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat Huzurnagar has
created false transfer order of Sri Shaik Khaja Moinuddin (Khaja) and
issued LPC to him transferring from Huzurnagar Gram Panchayat to
Anumula (Halia) Gram Panchayat vide proceedings dated 23.3.1996,
without mentioning the date of handing over the charge by Sri Khaja, Bill
Collector at Huzurnagar, Gram Panchayat. The Government after
examining the report of the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Hyderabad, referred the case to the Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings
relating to corruption against the applicant-first respondent. The following
charges have been framed against the first respondent:
"CHARGE NO. 1: That Sri T. Satyanarayana, while working
as Executive Officer at Huzurnagar Gram Panchayat,
Nalgonda District actuatedby corrupt motive and in abuse of
your official position took bribe and issued transfer orders to
Sri Khaja Moinuddin working at Huzurnagar Gram Panchayat
on 23.3.1996 to proceed to new place of posting i.e., Anumula
(Halia) and caused wrongful loss to the Gram Panchayat
funds and wrongful gain to Sri Khaja Moinuddin and you have
colluded with all the staff of District Panchayat Office and
allowed Sri Khaja Moinuddin to continue as Bill Collector
though he was not appointed legally and in the LPC issued to
Sri Khaja Moinuddin, it was mentioned by you that he was
drawing basic pay of Rs. 2,135/- up to March, 1996 in the
scale of Rs. 1595-3020 but the date of handing over charge by
Sri Khaja Moinuddin at Huzurabad Gram Panchayat was not
at all mentioned nor the date of LPC issued to him thereby you
are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of A.P.
Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1989
framed under the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary proceedings
Tribunal Rules, 1960 as amended in 1993".
CHARGE 2: That Sri T. Satyanarayan, while working as
Executive Officer at Huzurnagar Gram Panchayat, Nalgonda
District actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of your official
position relieved Sri Khaja Moinuddin on 22.4.1996 from
Huzurnagar Gram Panchayat vide Proc. No. GPH/8/96, dated
22.4.1996 though he was not on the rolls of the staff of any
Gram Panchayat and there was no Service Register in his
name and Sri Khaja Moinuddin joined to duty in Halia Gram
Panchayat (Anumula) on 25.4.1996 as Bill Collector and Sri D.
Railaiah (C.O. in Tec.No. 71/2003) sent intimation to the
District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda about Sri Khaja
Moinuddin joining to duty thereby you are guilty of misconduct
within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of A.P. Civil Services
(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989 framed under
the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
Rules, 1960 as amended in 1993".
On the basis of the above charges, the Government placed the first
respondent herein on his defence before the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings to inquire into the allegation of corruption under Rule 3 of the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules") vide Government Memo dated
15.11.2002. After receipt of the report and after following the due
procedure as per rules, orders were issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 438 dated
7.11.2008 imposing penalty of 5% cut in pension for 3 years under Rule 9
of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, against
the first respondent herein and the suspension period from 5.3.2002 to
1.4.2004 was treated as 'not duty' in terms of F. R 54 (B)(7) as he was
inflicted with a penalty of 5% cut in pension for three years under Rule 9
of A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. It is also submitted that the counter
affidavit in O.A.No. 858 was filed in February, 2008 and the fact of
completion of enquiry and issuance of orders in G.O.Ms.No. 438, P.R and
R.D (Vig.III-A) Department dated 7.11.2008 inflicting of punishment of 5%
cut in pension for three years under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension
Rules on the first respondent herein and treating his suspension period
from 5.3.2002 to 1.4.2004 as 'Not duty' in terms of FR 54(B) (7), could not
be brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of disposal of O.A on
26.11.2008.
The learned Government Pleader contended that the Tribunal has
committed serious legal infirmity and committed jurisdictional error in
interfering with the departmental proceedings, which is impermissible
under law. The punishment was imposed on 7.11.2008 and before
imposing punishment, the authorities have issued show cause notice and
after receiving the explanation to the show cause notice only punishment
was imposed. The Tribunal has not taken note of this aspect and in fact
that was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal due to inadvertence. But
the Tribunal declared that the departmental enquiry initiated against the
first respondent shall be treated as non-est in the eye of law on the ground
of not finalizing the disciplinary proceedings within the reasonable time
frame. He further contended that when once the charges are proved and
the punishment was imposed because of misconduct under FR No. 54,
the authority has rightly treated the period as 'not duty' as he was inflicted
with a penalty of 5% cut in pension for three years under Rule 9 of A.P.
Revised Pension Rules, 1980.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first
respondent contended that the misconduct is of the year 1996 and he
retired from service in the year 1997 and the charge memo was issued on
15.11.2002 and the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings in the year 2003 and the same was reserved by the Tribunal
and no orders were passed. When the judgment was delivered, the
Tribunal has rightly invalidated the disciplinary proceedings and held that
the departmental enquiry initiated against the first respondent-applicant
shall be treated as non-est in the eye of law on the ground of inordinate
delay. He further contended that the expression used under Rule 6(2)(b)
is that the authority has to complete and conclude the departmental
proceedings by imposing punishment on delinquent employee within the
time frame of two months but the authorities have imposed the
punishment after a period of four years. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly
considered this aspect and declared that the entire proceedings shall be
treated as non-est in the eye of law. In support of his contention learned
counsel relied on the decision reported in P.V. MAHADEVAN VS. MD.
[1]
T.N. HOUSING BOARD
The point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal has
committed any error in coming to such conclusion?
The matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings to enquiry into the allegation of corruption under Rule 3 of
the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal)
Rules, 1989 vide memo No. 15.11.2002 and after receipt of the report and
after following the due process, the authorities have issued G.O.Ms.No.
438, dated 7.11.2008 imposing penalty of 5% cut in pension for three
years.
The learned Government Pleader contended that the first
respondent himself is responsible for the delay. When the matter was
pending, the first respondent addressed a letter to the Home Minister and
the matter was held up there and therefore, delay is not on the part of the
department and the language used in Rule 6(2)(b) is ordinarily not
exceeding one month. Therefore, the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings should complete the process within the time frame of two
months. Considering the nature of various aspects, it is contended the
delay is attributable on the part of the first respondent also and the
Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the departmental proceedings,
which is impermissible under law, inasmuch as appropriate punishment
was imposed.
We have gone through the Rule 6(2)(b) of the APCS (DPT) Rules,
1989, and the relevant portion that reads as under:
"(b) The Government, after receipt of the report from the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, shall supply a copy
of the report of the Tribunal to the charged Government
servant and shall pass final orders after taking into
consideration any representation made by him thereto
within a reasonable time, ordinarily not exceeding one
month. However, it shall not be necessary to give to the
person charged any opportunity of making representation
on the penalty proposed to be imposed:
Provided that the Government shall consult (the Andhra
Pradesh Vigilance Commission) in regard to the course of
further action to be taken and take the advice into
consideration, before orders are passed;
Provided further that where the Government disagree with
the whole or any part of the Tribunal's findings, the point of
points of disagreement together with a brief statement of
the grounds therefore shall, in case where it affects the
Government servant charged adversely or prejudicially be
communicated along with the enquiry report of the
Tribunal"
In view of the above, it has to be interpreted that considering the
various facts involved in the case, merely because there is delay, which is
attributable on the part of the first respondent, the entire disciplinary
proceedings cannot be invalidated on that ground and the Tribunal ought
not to have invalidated the departmental proceedings. The learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners had drawn our attention to the
judgment reported in DEPUTY REGISTRAR, COOPERATIVE
SOCIEITY, SAIDABAD VS. SACHITANANDA NATH PANDEY AND
[2]
OTHERS , wherein it was held that where the charges were very
serious viz., misappropriation in absconding along with official records,
mere elapsing of a long period from the date of commencement of
departmental enquiry is not a sufficient ground to close the matter. More
so, when the department alone was not responsible for the delay.
In P.V. MAHADEVAN VS. MD. T.N. HOUSING BOARD (supra-1),
case there was inordinate delay of 10 years in initiating departmental
enquiry against appellant therein and no convincing explanation was
given by the respondent therein. In those circumstances, it was held that
allowing respondent therein to proceed further with departmental
proceedings at a distance of time would be very prejudicial to appellant,
as appellant already suffered enough and more on account of the
disciplinary proceedings. Hence, charge memo issued against him was
quashed and departmental enquiry was put to an end. It was also held
that the appellant is entitled to all retiral benefits.
It is no doubt true that the charges are proved and the Tribunal has
proceeded on the premise that the proceedings are still pending, but this
aspect was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal before passing the
judgment by the learned Government Pleader as well as the counsel
appearing for the first respondent. Inasmuch as, the punishment order
was imposed by the authority on 7.11.2008, before inflicting the
punishment the first respondent also submitted an explanation to the
show cause notice. He has also not brought to the notice of this fact
before the Tribunal when the judgment was reserved. However, having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when the misconduct is
proved with reference to the charge, the Tribunal for Disciplinary
Proceedings inflicted punishment of penalty of 5% cut in pension for 3
years under Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, and the
Tribunal upheld the same inasmuch as the same cannot be invalidated
merely on the ground of delay, in the circumstances, we think it fit to remit
the matter to the petitioners-authorities since the employee has already
retired from service.
The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended
that the first respondent has already retired from service in 1997 itself.
Therefore, to meet the ends of justice and to see that the litigation shall
not be continued for a further period, we hold that the punishment of 5%
cut in pension for three years is set aside and the period of suspension,
from 5.3.2002 to 1.4.2004 to be treated as on duty, but as far as the other
emoluments be restricted only to the extent of subsistence allowance,
which was already received by the first respondent herein. Petitioners-
authorities shall complete this exercise within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no
order as to costs.
_____________________________
GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
______________________________
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J
Dt. 23.4.2009
KA
..... REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
To
2 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nalgonda, Nalgonda
District.
3 The Mandal Parishad Development officer, nandigudem, Nalgonda
Disgtrict.
4 The Accountant General, Andhra Pradesh, Government of India,
Lakidikapul, Hyderabad.
5. 2CC to G.P. for Services II, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad OUT
6. 2 CD copies
[1]
(2005) 6 SCC 636
[2]
1995 (3) SCC 134
