A. Srirama Murthy v. Director, Andhra Pradesh forest Development Corporation Limited

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent in PD/6328/99(IV)/3595, dated

28.07.2000, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent PD/6328/99(IV)/1590, dated 04.02.2000, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears, the petitioner, while working as Deputy Plantation Manager in A.P. Forest Development Corporation Limited at Perali Cashew Estate of Kavali Division, was issued with a charge sheet, dated 17.02.1999, enumerating the following charges:

Charge-I: Collusion with the highest bidder of cashew usufruct of 1998-99 season in raising of agricultural crops like groundnut in the Reserve Forest Lands, taken the A.P. Forest Department, on which cashew estates are located. Also dereliction of duties and abetment with the cashew usufruct purchasers in committing of the offence. the APFDC on Charge-II: Suppression of facts in the matter pertaining to illegal raising of groundnut and other agricultural crops in cashew estate located in Reserve Forest Area.

After conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges framed against him.

Thereupon, the 2nd respondent- disciplinary authority passed a final order on 04.02.2000, imposing a punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect with all implications. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the 1st respondent – appellate authority, but however, the same was rejected, by an order dated 28.07.2000. Hence, this writ petition. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that absolutely there was no evidence to prove that the petitioner was involved in the misconduct alleged, and that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. The disciplinary authority did not appreciate the matter in proper perspective and imposed the punishment, which is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged, and the same was erroneously confirmed by the appellate authority. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent and stated that the charges framed against the petitioner are grave in nature and are proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

In fact, the disciplinary authority has taken a lenient view and imposed lesser punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect for the grave charges proved, and, hence, no interference is warranted by this Court. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. A perusal of the enquiry officer’s report reveals that the petitioner, in his explanation to the charges framed against him, has stated that when he questioned the person, who was illegally raising the groundnut crop in the cashew estate, he was informed that the same was raised with the oral permission of the Divisional Manager, Kavali. Though the Divisional Manager inspected the site on several occasions, he remained silent and had not taken any action. Even the Regional Manager inspected the site, but he too did not react, and since the crop was raised with the permission of the superior officers, it was not possible for him to take any action.

He requested the enquiry officer to consider his helplessness in that regard. This was, of course, not taken into consideration by the authorities. When the petitioner has stated that raising of groundnut crop was within the knowledge of the superior officers, some enquiry should have been conducted as to the correctness of his statement. Instead of that, the petitioner was found guilty of the charges since he could not produce any evidence to disprove the charges. There appears to be some truth in the statement of the petitioner that his superiors had knowledge of the irregularities pointed out. But, in a case of this nature, it is difficult for the petitioner to produce any evidence in proof of his statement. However, the petitioner cannot totally deny his involvement in the irregularities and it cannot be said that there was no misconduct at all on his part. When it was noticed by the petitioner that groundnut crop was raised without valid permission, he could have brought the same to the notice of the higher officials in writing.

In the overall circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that though the charges are proved, imposing a major punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. For the above reasons, the punishment imposed is modified and the same should be read as ‘stoppage of five annual grade increments without cumulative effect’. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any monetary benefits in view of this modification and his increments shall not be restored for the purpose of fixing his pay after completion of the said five years. The increments shall be taken into consideration only for the purpose of calculating his pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. 29th April, 2008. IBL To _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 1 The Chairman and Managing Director, The Board of management, Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Limited Registered Office, 3rd Floor, UNI Building. A. C. Guards, Hyderabad. 2 The Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Limited, Registered Officer 3rd Floor, UNI Building. A. C. Guards, Hyderabad. 3 The Divisional Manager, Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Limited Kavali, Nellore District. 4 Two CD Copies