Telangana High Court
K.Anjaiah, Hyderabad vs Collector A.P.S.H.Corpn. Ltd. Hyd And 3 ... on 27 September, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 23818 OF 2006
O R D E R:
Petitioner claims to have been appointed as N.M.R.
Work Inspector in the 1st respondent - A.P. State Housing
Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation')
during 1987 and his services were regularized in the cadre of
Work Inspector with effect from 27.03.1992. While so, he was
placed under suspension by order dated 31.08.1993 along with
Assistant Engineer Sri K. Dharma Reddy on the ground that
there was shortage of about 3000 bags of cement.
Subsequently, the Assistant Engineer Sri K.Dharma Reddy filed
Writ Petition No. 13151 of 1993, wherein this Court suspended
the order of suspension. Later Charge Memo, dated 06.09.1994
was issued by the EO & Joint Collector, Rangareddy District
and a criminal case was registered in Crime No. 218 of 1993
under Section 409 IPC. for misappropriation of cement bags.
The grievance of petitioner is that no detailed enquiry under
Rule 20 of A.P. C.S. (CC&A) Rules has been conducted.
It is stated that petitioner also assailed the order of
suspension in Writ Petition No. 1454 of 1995 wherein also,
operation of order of suspension dated 31.08.1993 was
suspended and petitioner was directed to be reinstated
forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition, pursuant to
which, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 07.09.1995
reinstating him as Work Inspector (Technical). It is stated
further that during the period of suspension, petitioner was not
paid subsistence allowance in accordance with the
Fundamental Rules and his pay was also not revised in the
Revised Pay Scales resulting in severe hardship. It is only by
proceedings dated 17.10.1995, the 1st respondent sanctioned
subsistence allowance from the date of suspension to the date of
joining.
It is the complaint of petitioner that before his
reinstatement, respondents obtained statement from him
forcibly to the effect that he was wholly responsible for the loss
of 3000 cement bags in the godown and made him pay
Rs.90,000/- towards part payment out of Rs.2,56,044/-. He was
also threatened with dire consequences to pay the balance
amount of Rs.1,60,044/- in one lump sum so as to enable him
reinstate to duty. According to petitioner, being low-paid
employee, he could not pay the amount and the Enquiry Officer
conducted one-sided enquiry in utter disregard to Rule 20 (2) of
A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules and submitted his report dated
10.02.1995 holding the charge proved. On receipt of the
Enquiry report, respondents issued show cause notice dated
03.10.1997 proposing provisional punishment of dismissal from
service besides recovery of Rs.1,66,044/- for which, he
submitted explanation stating that due to coercion, he
confessed and remitted Rs.90,000/-. After submitting his
written explanation in the personal hearing, the 2nd respondent
issued the impugned proceedings dated 02.04.1998 inflicting
the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments
with cumulative effect apart from recovery of entire balance
amount of Rs.1,66,044/- and requested the District Manager
(H). A.P.S.H.CL. Ranga Reddy District to take necessary steps to
recover Rs.1,66,044/- from him. It was also directed that period
of suspension from 31.03.1993 tο 08.09.1995 be treated as
leave as per the eligibility and E.O.L. without pay and
allowances for the remaining period. Petitioner preferred Appeal
before the Chairman & Managing Director of the Corporation on
08.12.2005, during pendency of which, in the criminal
proceedings C.C.No. 125 of 1994 before the Additional Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad West and South, R.R.District,
petitioner and Sri Dharma Reddy were acquitted. Consequent
thereto, petitioner is stated to have made representations to the
2nd respondent on 16.03.2001, 02.04.2002 and 21.10.2005 for
passing necessary orders in the light of the judgment of the
competent criminal Court. The 2nd respondent, however,
issued the impugned Memo, dated 25.05.2006 mechanically
rejecting his Appeal.
2. While issuing rule nisi, by order dated 13.07.2007,
this Court dismissed the Application taken out to direct the
respondents not to effect recovery of loss at Rs.800/- per month
from the salary of petitioner by proceedings dated 02.04.1998
issued by the Managing Director of the 1 s t respondent
Corporation. The respondent Corporation has not filed counter-
affidavit, however, since the Writ Petition is of 2006, this Court
does not wish to keep the same pending any further.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri A. Radha Krishna
submits that respondents threatened and obtained coercive
statement from his client and the Enquiry Officer held the
charge proved without conducting a detailed enquiry as
contemplated under the disciplinary rules. The report of the
Enquiry Officer is therefore one-sided and some how intended to
find fault with petitioner exclusively. It is pointed out that there
are several persons in the godown namely Godown Watchman
and Assistant Engineer and others apart from petitioner and the
competent criminal Court had elaborately considered the entire
evidence and held petitioner and Assistant Engineer not guilty
of the charge, hence, in the light of the judgment, punishment
of recovery and stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is
clearly illegal and untenable in the eye of law as the punishment
is based on confession statement but not on the basis of
evidence on record. Learned counsel tries to convince this Court
that it is well-settled principle of law that where the
departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are based
on the same set of facts, acquittal by the competent criminal
Court is to be taken into account, as such the impugned
punishment order besides recovery of the entire amount is
clearly untenable.
4. Heard Sri M. Rammohan Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for Corporation and perused the record.
5. Proceedings impugned dated 02.04.1998, a perusal
of which, goes to show that the Joint Collector - Enquiry Officer
conducted a detailed enquiry into the charge framed against
petitioner that there is shortage of cement at Rajendra Nagar
Cement Godown of R.R.District and he observed that petitioner
had given written statement that he was solely responsible for
shortage of cement as the keys of godown are with him; he was
in charge of godown during the period of theft; he accepted the
moral responsibility for the theft of 3369 cement and remitted
only Rs.90,000/- as against Rs.2,56,044/-. The Enquiry Officer
held that petitioner is the only Work Inspector who operated the
said cement godown and he is responsible for proper accounting
of cement stock and safeguard storage of cement. A further
perusal would go to show that petitioner was given a show
cause notice proposing the punishment of dismissal from
service besides recovery of balance amount of Rs.1,66,044/- for
which petitioner gave reply stating that due to coercion, he
confessed and gave written statement and remitted Rs.90,000/-
by selling ancestral property. However, petitioner, though was
given personal hearing before the Managing Director on
10.03.1998, had not put-forth his case that under coercion, the
above said amount was recovered from him, nor did the officials
follow the procedure in vogue. As rightly observed by the
Enquiry Officer, petitioner kept quiet all the while and pleading
his ignorance when proposal for dismissal was made. However,
it appeared, the Managing Director, taking the lenient view,
imposed the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade
increments with cumulative effect and recovery of balance
amount of Rs.1,66,044/- on petitioner. Appeal filed against the
said order was placed before the Board, which in its 104th
meeting held on 27.03.2006, rejected the same as it was devoid
of merit.
6. It is well-settled that 'in disciplinary proceedings, the
High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
The High Court in exercise of its power under Section 226 of the
Constitution of India, shall not - venture into re-appreciation of the
evidence; interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry in case the
same has been conducted in accordance with law; go into the
adequacy of evidence; go into the reliability of the evidence;
interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can
be based; correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to
be; and go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks
its conscience. In the orders impugned, this Court does not
find any illegality, when examined in the context of the
guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, hence no
interference need be made.
7. Yet another contention of learned counsel for
petitioner is that where the departmental proceedings and
criminal proceedings are based on the same set of facts,
acquittal by the competent criminal Court is to be taken in to
account. In this context, it is necessary to look into the well-
settled law that 'in criminal law, burden of proof is on the
prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt
of the accused 'beyond reasonable doubt', he cannot be
convicted by a court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the
other hand, penalty can be imposed on the delinquent officer on
a finding recorded on the basis of 'preponderance of probability'.
Acquittal by a criminal court would not debar an employer from
exercising power in accordance with the Rules and Regulations
in force. The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are
entirely different. They operate in different fields and have
different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal trial is to
inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose of
enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent
departmentally and to impose penalty in accordance with the
service rules. In a criminal trial, incriminating statement made
by the accused in certain circumstances or before certain
officers is totally inadmissible in evidence. Such strict rules of
evidence and procedure would not apply to departmental
proceedings. (see Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ)
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2005) 7 SCC 764.)
8. In the light of the glaring distinction drawn by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the contention of learned counsel for
petitioner pales into insignificance. Taking into consideration
therefore, the legal position as well as the facts, this Court is of
the view that Writ Petition is devoid of merit and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No
costs.
10. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
27th September 2024
ksld
