A. Sudhakar vs State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3263 Tel

       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

               WRIT PETITION No.9156 of 2019
ORDER :

In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order

dated 19.05.2017, passed by the 2nd respondent imposing the major

punishment of withholding one annual grade increment with

cumulative effect and ordering to recover an amount of

Rs.3,58,970/- from the petitioner. He has also questioned the order

dated 07.09.2018 passed by the 1st respondent, rejecting his appeal.

2. Heard Mr.Hemanth Kumar Vemuri, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of Mr.Ravi Kondaveeti, counsel for petitioner

and the learned Assistant Government Pleaders for Education and

Services-I, appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Statistical

Assistant and was posted in the office of Deputy Director, Adult

Education, Adilabad on 08.03.1989, and later, he was transferred to

the office of Deputy Director, Adult Education, Khammam on

24.08.1992. Subsequently, he was promoted as Assistant Project

Officer on 05.08.2015 and was posted in Manthani Division.

JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019

While so, basing on a complaint made before the Lokayuktha, a

charge memo vide proceedings dated 11.12.2015 was issued

against the petitioner alleging that while functioning as Statistical

Assistant in the office of Deputy Director of Adult Education,

Khammam, an amount of Rs.7,17,940/- was found to be

misappropriated by the petitioner by preparing bogus and forged

bills/vouchers for purchase of certain items in Zilla Lok Siksha

Samithi, Khammam. Petitioner has submitted his explanation to

the charge memo on 30.06.2016. Thereafter, the inquiry officer

was appointed on 12.09.2016, inquiry report was submitted on

02.01.2017, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation

on 12.02.2017, and ultimately, the order dated 19.05.2017 was

passed by the 2nd respondent, imposing the major punishment of

withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect

and for recovery of Rs.3,58,970/- i.e. 50% of the alleged

misappropriated amount. The appeal preferred by the petitioner

was rejected by order dated 07.09.2018, confirming the order of

punishment.

JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019

4. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents stating that

basing on the complaint made before Lokayuktha with regard to

misappropriation of funds, an inquiry was conducted against the

petitioner, wherein, it was found that the petitioner along with one

Mr. M.Ananda Ratna Kumar, the then Deputy Director have

misappropriated an amount of Rs.7,17,940/-. Therefore, after

conclusion of proceedings, the major punishment of stoppage of

one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was imposed on

the petitioner apart from ordering to recover an amount of

Rs.3,58,970/- from him being 50% of the amount misappropriated.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that at

relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Statistical

Assistant in the office of Deputy Director of Adult Education,

Khammam. Though he was not concerned with preparation of

files, as the Accountant was not available, on the oral instructions

of Deputy Director, he prepared some files. It is contended that all

the amounts were paid through cheques, but the respondents have

failed to furnish the counter-foils of such cheques so as to verify as

to whom the payments were made and whether such amounts were

JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019

paid to any unauthorized suppliers. Even without verifying such

counter-foils of cheques, the respondents have initiated

proceedings against the petitioner and held the charge proved.

Thus, it is his case that though the petitioner was working as

Statistical Assistant at relevant point of time, as he prepared some

files for purchasing certain items in Zilla Lok Siksha Samithi only

as per the directions of the then Deputy Director, he cannot be

made responsible for the alleged misappropriation of funds, that

too, without proper evidence to establish the said charge.

Accordingly, he prayed to set aside the punishment imposed on the

petitioner.

6. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Assistant

Government Pleader appearing for respondents that the petitioner

along with one Mr. M.Ananda Ratna Kumar, the then Deputy

Director have misappropriated an amount of Rs.7,17,940/- by

producing bogus bills/vouchers with regard to purchase of certain

items in Zilla Lok Siksha Samithi, which has been proved in the

inquiry, therefore, the punishment has been imposed on the

petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner has paid amounts to

JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019

certain Firms without proper sanction and also without proper work

orders. It is also contended that no stock registers and stock receipt

entries were available in the office in respect of the payments made

to the tune of Rs.7,17,940/-, and as the same has been proved in the

inquiry proceedings, punishment was imposed on the petitioner.

Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. In this case, it is to be noted that at relevant point of time

when the alleged misappropriation has taken place, the petitioner

was working as Statistical Assistant in the office of Deputy

Director of Adult Education, Khammam. Though the petitioner

was Statistical Assistant and not concerned with preparation of

files with regard to purchase of items in Zilla Lok Siksha Samithi,

it is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was orally

directed by the Deputy Director to prepare such files and

accordingly, he prepared certain files. It is to be seen that the files

prepared by the petitioner are to be approved by the Deputy

Director, therefore, if such files prepared by the petitioner are not

in accordance with the prescribed procedure or if there are any

loopholes, the approving authority will not approve the same until

JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019

the same are rectified. Thus, it can be said that the petitioner has to

prepare the files as per the directions of his superior officers.

Therefore, the irregularities, if any, will be attributable only to the

approving authority, as the petitioner was just assisting his superior

in preparation of files in the absence of regular Accountant. When

the petitioner was orally directed to prepare the files which was not

his regular job, he cannot take independent decision in such work

and would normally discharge such duties as per the directions of

his superior officer, here, the Deputy Director of Adult Education.

8. Apart from the above, the petitioner's contention is that all

the payments were made through cheques and inspite of his request

for supply of the counter-foils of such cheques, neither the

respondents nor the Banks concerned have furnished the same, to

prove as to whom the payments were made and whether such

payments were made in accordance with Rules or otherwise. The

respondents, without furnishing such details and without

examining any witnesses, have conducted the inquiry merely

basing on the charge memo and the explanation submitted by the

JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019

petitioner, which amounts to violation of principles of natural

justice.

9. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenglas Tea Estate v. Its

Workmen 1, wherein, it is held that termination without proper

inquiry and without examining witnesses would amount to

violation of principles of natural justice. He has also relied on the

judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in G.Chinna

Yogeswara Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & another 2,

wherein, the punishment imposed on the employee was set aside on

the ground that no witnesses were examined nor any documents

were filed to prove the charges and the punishment was imposed

simply on the basis of charge memo and explanation submitted by

the petitioner in response to the show cause notice.

10. Both the above judgments are applicable to the facts of the

present case, as in this case also, the petitioner has sought for the

counter-foils of the cheques through which payments were made,

MANU/SC/0139/1963

2022 (3) ALD 198 (AP)(DB)

JS, J W.P.No.9156 of 2019

so as to examine whether such payments were made in accordance

with the Rules or not, however, the same were not furnished to him

either by the respondents or the Banks concerned and the

punishment was imposed holding that the charge of

misappropriation against the petitioner was established in the

inquiry. Therefore, the impugned orders of punishment are liable

to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the

order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent and the further

order dated 07.09.2018 passed by the 1st respondent. Since the

petitioner has retired from service, the respondents shall revive the

withheld increment of the petitioner and extend all consequential

monetary benefits to him in accordance with Rules, within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 17.10.2023 ajr