Telangana High Court

P. Bala Krishnam Raju vs The State Of Telangana on 5 March, 2024

                                          1


         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                     WRIT PETITION No.46428 of 2022

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

" to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc.No.255/2019/M4, dated 18.06.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent and its consequential orders passed by the 2nd respondent and its consequence orders passed in the appeal vide Rc.No.9689/2020/D&A-1, dated 16.02.2021 and also orders passed by the Government Memo No.For.III/A1/2022 dated 23.09.2022 in mercy petition vide as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to CC& A Rules besides being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and hold that the suspension period spent by the petitioenr from 21.01.2019 to 19.06.2019 as on duty with all consequential and attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. Heard Sri D.Balakishan Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner that while the petitioner was working as Deputy Range Officer at

Yellareddy Section and Range of Kamareddy Division, an article of charge

was issued against him by the third respondent in Rc.No.255/2019/M4,

dated 18.02.2019 framing two charges. For which, the petitioner has

submitted his explanation on 15.04.2019 duly explaining that himself and

one Prabhakar, Technical Assistant are working in the office even in the

late night and that due to hungry, they brought some cool drinks and

snacks for refreshment and while they are taking cool drinks, a reporter of

Andhra Jyothi reporter came there and took video and published news that

they have consumed alcohol in the office premises. It is further contended

that as per the statement of said Technical Assistant, he came to the said

place at about 8.30 pm to handover NREGS muster rolls for payment of

wages to the labour and at that time, he noticed a water bottle and some

snacks on the table, where the petitioner is attending his office work and he

offered the same to him. But, the said Technical Assistant has taken apple

juice (fruit juice) due to Saturday fasting and

at the same, the two paper reporters came to the place and the Technical

Assistant left the place. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioner has

consumed alcohol is totally wrong and did not tally with the statement of

Technical Assistant made on 21.01.2019. Though, the same was denied by

the petitioner in his explanation, without considering the same, an enquiry

was ordered and the Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted his

report in Rc.No.1847/2018/D5, dated 19.03.2020 holding that the charge

framed against the petitioner is proved. Basing on the same, the 3rd

respondent has awarded punishment of "stoppage of next three annual

grade increments with cumulative effect will have effect on pension and

treating the suspension period as leave to which he is entitled."

Against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before

the 2nd respondent. However, the same was rejected vide

Rc.No.9689/2020/D&A-1, dated 16.02.2021, holding that no new grounds

were found for interference in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner has

preferred revision before the 1st respondent, since the same was not

considered, the petitioner has filed WP.No.29626 of 2022 before this Court

and the same was disposed of vide order dated 18.07.2022 directing the 1st

respondent to consider revision of the petitioner on its own merits within a

period of six weeks. In pursuance of the same, the 1st respondent has

considered the case of the petitioner mechanically and rejected without

assigning any valid reasons on 23.09.2022. It is further contended that the

appointing authority has failed to consider that the Enquiry officer herself

made a complaint and appointed as Enquiry officer and conducted the

enquiry contrary to Rule 20 of CCA Rules. Further, the Enquiry officer

relied upon the news item published in the news papers without

appreciating the statements of witness, wherein it was clearly stated that

the cool drink bottle was available on the table, but not the alcohol.

But, the Enquiry officer without considering the statement given by the

witness has come to the conclusion that the charges are proved contrary to

the record. Further, the disciplinary authority without considering the

explanation of the petitioner and also the evidence on record imposed the

punishment of stoppage of next three Annual Grade increments with

cumulative effect will have effect on pension is illegal, arbitrary and

contrary to evidence on record.

4. It is further contended that the appellate authority and the revisional

authority has failed to consider various reasons and rejected by single line

order without the appreciating the material on record including the

explanation and without sending the petitioner to medical test, erroneously

came to the conclusion that the charges held proved and imposed the

punishment, which is disproportionate to the charge leveled against him.

Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. In support of his

contentions, he relied on the judgment of Apex Court in

Munna Lal v. Union of India 1, Division Bench judgment of this Court in

K.Bala Rama Raju v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2, B.Ramachandra Rao

(died) by L.Rs v. Syndicate bank, Head Office, Manipal 3 and a decision of

this Court in WP.No.14417 of 2021, dated 31.03.2023.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents submits that since the petitioner was caught redhanded by the

Press, while consuming alcohol in old Range Office building within the

premises of the Forest Range Officer, Yellareddy Range and the same was

published in the news papers i.e. Sakshi and Andhra Jyothi. Therefore, he

was issued with an Article of charge under Rule 20 of Telangana State Civil

Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991

(for short "CCA Rules") by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.255/2019/M4,

dated 18.02.2019 framing two charges. For which, the petitioner has

submitted his defence statement on 15.04.2019 denying the charges

framed against him. As his explanation was not satisfactory, the

disciplinary authority has appointed the District Forest Officer, Kamareddy

as Enquiry Officer vide Chief Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad circle,

Nizamabad Proceedings No.255/2019/M4(i), dated 02.08.2019, to enquire

into the charges framed against the petitioner. Accordingly, the Enquiry

Officer has conducted enquiry on 05.12.2019 as per the procedure laid

down in Rule 20 of CCA Rules by giving fair opportunity to the petitioner to

produce the evidence, if any, and the findings of the enquiry officer were

communicated to him vide Rc.No.255/2019/M4, dated 23.04.2020, with

(2010) 15 Supreme Court Cases 399

2009 (5) ALD 1 (DB)

2007 (4) ALD 707

instructions to submit his further written statement of defence. For which,

the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 11.05.2020. Therefore,

after considering his explanation and basing on the enquiry report, the

disciplinary authority has awarded the punishment of "stoppage of next

three annual grade increments with cumulative effect will have

effect on his pension for the charges held proved against him and

the suspension period be regularized as leave to

which he is entitled" vide proceedings No.255/2019/M4,

dated 18.06.2020, of the 3rd respondent and the same was confirmed

by the appellate authority and the revisional authority vide proceedings

in Rc.No.9689/2020/D&A-1, dated 16.02.2021, and Memo

No.4002/For/For.III/A1/2022, dated 23.09.2022, respectively. Therefore,

the respondents are justified in imposing the punishment of stoppage of

next three annual grade increments with cumulative effect will have effect

on his pension to the proven charge, as confirmed in the appeal and the

revision.

6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective

parties.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that the 3rd respondent has issued

Articles of Charge in Rc.No.255/2019/M4, dated 18.02.2019, on the basis

of news item published in Andhra Jyothi paper on 20.01.2019. For which,

the petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charges leveled

against him. As his explanation was not satisfactory, regular enquiry was

conducted and the Enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the

charge framed against the petitioner was proved. Basing on the same, the

respondents imposed the punishment of stoppage of next three annual

grade increments with cumulative effect will have effect on his pension,

which is disproportionate to the charge leveled against the petitioner.

In this context, it is relevant to refer the judgment of Munna Lal's case

(1 supra), wherein the Apex Court at para Nos.3, 4 and 5 held as under:

" 3. The appellant contended that on that day, he was ill and was taking medicines and this must have caused the smell of alcohol. An inquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer relied on the incomplete report of the doctor who examined the appellant and held that the appellant's case was a confirmed case of intoxication and reliance was also placed on the three witnesses, who were examined in the inquiry. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no medical evidence to prove that the appellant was drunken on that day and he was alcoholic and he was also not taken to Safdarjung Hospital as suggested by the duty doctor on panel at the Airport. The appellant also contended that reliance could not have been placed on the oral evidence given by the witnesses.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant was found guilty of dereliction of duty previously also and there were other disciplinary proceedings against the conduct of the appellant. But in the instant case it was not proved that the appellant was drunk on the day when he was on duty. Evidence was not satisfactory to prove that he was found with any alcohol and he was also not taken to Safdarjung Hospital as suggested by the first doctor.

5. In the absence of positive evidence, we are of the view that the charge levelled against the appellant was not proved satisfactorily. In the absence of sufficient proof, the disciplinary authority should not have imposed such penalty. Therefore, the punishment imposed was illegal and the appellant is entitled to be reinstated in service and he is entitled to get 50% of the back wages for the period he was out of service. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service forthwith. The appellant's service during this period would be treated for other service benefits such as seniority, increment and pension."

8. Admittedly, in the present case also, though Article of charges was

issued against the petitioner stating that he committed dereliction of duty

and consumed alcohol in the office premises on 19.01.2019 in the night

and in the enquiry, it was held that charge proved against him, the fact

remains that he was not sent for any medical examination. Therefore, it is

clear that there was no direct evidence against the petitioner to say that he

has consumed alcohol on that day in the office premises. In the absence of

any evidence, this Court is of the view that the charge leveled against the

petitioner was not proved satisfactorily. Therefore, imposing of punishment

of stoppage of next three annual grade increments with cumulative effect

will have effect on his pension, as confirmed in the appeal and the revision,

is disproportionate to the charge leveled against him and the same is liable