S. Nagaraju v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the impugned orders vide G.O.RI.No.41 '1 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.l) Department dated 13.08.2019 issued by the 1st respondent wherein decided to recover an amount of Rs. 7,25,4401 without giving notice and opportunity and without conducting enquiry is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same. |.A.NO:1 OF 2019 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned orders vide G.O.Rt.No.411 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.l) Department dated 13.08.2019 issued by the 1st respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES- tl The Court made the following COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.27418 and,22944 of 2Ol9 COMMON ORDEIT: Since the lis involved in these writ petitions is inter-connected, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.274 18 of 2Ol9 is filed seeking the following retief: "...1o issue a wi\ order or dtrection more particatarlg one rn the nature of Wit ol MANDAMUS to declare the impugned orders utde G.O.RI.N}.41O Heatth, Medicql & Familg Welfare (VC.I Deportment dated 13.O8.2o19 isstted. bU the 1st respondent uherein imposng the punishnlent of stoppage of one increment uithout cumulattue eJfect witlrout follotoittg the CCA Rules is illegal arbitrary and utlconstttutiot.teL errd set aside the same with a consequenttql direction to the respondeltt to rerylarize of suspension peiod from 29.1:2.2OO8 to 29.O7.2O09 os on dutg and paV the pag and allowance.s and releose the tncrement of 2009 due to the petttioner sith all consequentiel benefils and pctss... "

3. W.P.No.22944 of 2O19 is filed seeking the follou,ing re lief "...to rssue a wit, order or direction more patticulqrlg one in the nature of Vlnt of MANDAMUS to declare the impugned orders uide G.O.Rt.No.4l 1 Health, Medicat & Familg Welfure (VC.I Depurtment dated 1-1.08.2019 issued bg the 1st respondent wherein decided to recouer at7 emount of Rs.7,25,44O/- lxithout giuing notice ond opponunttll arrd rutthout conducting enquiry is illegal arbitrary atld utlconstitution(7l anrd set qside the same and pass..."

4. Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-ll appearing on behalf of the respondents. -I 2 PK, J W.P.No.274l8 & 2294a of 2O19

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in respondent Department, respondent No.2 placed him under suspension vide proceedings dated

29.12.2OOa, on the allegation that he was involved in misappropriation of amounts pertaining to payments of family planning compensation money by falsification of sterilization cases of PP Unit, Sangareddy, (erstwhile Medak District) for the years 2006-07, 2OO7 -OB and 20O8-O9. While so, in respect of the very same allegation, respondent No.2 earlier issued proceedings Rc.No.998/CSW/D&Eg /2OO8 d,ated 12.12.2008, for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,25,44O /- from Dr. Kavitha, MC and DDO of PP Unit, Sangareddy District. Further, on 10.02.2009, the petitioner was served with the articles of charge vide Charge Memo dated lO.O2.2OO9. Thereafter, due to non availability of the relevant documents, the petitioner was unable to submit his explanation, as such, requested to furnish the relevant documents for submitting his explanation at the earliest. However, without considering his request for furnishing the relevant documents, respondent No. 1 appointed an enquiry oflrcer vide proceedings dated 08.12.2009, to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.2 directed the enquiry officer to conduct a detailed enquiry vide proceedings dated

12.07.2011. However, for the reasons best known to the respondents, - 3 PK, J W.P.No.27418 & 22944 of 2019 no enquiry was conducted by the enquiry oIlicer, but only after a lapse of nearly nine years from the date of issuance of the charge memo, an enquiry had commenced and respondent No.4 issued telephonic instructions to rhe petitioner to appear before the Deputy Director of Medical and Health for enquiry. Accordingly, the petitioner, along with the Medical officer appeared before the Deputy Director and submitted a representation, stating that the petitioner had not committed any mistake. Thereafter, the enquiry officer, without conducting any enquiry in accordance with the rules, submitted a report to respondent Nos. I In turn, respondent No.1, without issuing any notice or artd 2. opportunity to the petitioner, had straightaway, issued the impugned orders vide G.O.Rt.No.410 dated 13.O8.2019, imposing a punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, and on the very same day, issucd G.O.Rt.No.411 (impugned order in W.p.No.22944 of 20241, for recovery of Rs.7,25,440 from the petitioner. Therefore, the action of the respondents in straightaway imposing the punishment and issuing the impugned order, without properly conducting an enquiry as required under lar.r., that too, after a lapse of nearly nine years from the date of issuancc of the charge memo, is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice. -I 4 PK, J W.P.NI-27418 & 22944 of 2019

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner was nowhere concerned with the issue of misappropriation of amounts as he had only paid the lamily planning compensation amounts to the benehciaries as per the instructions issued by the higher authorities. Hence, the question of misappropriation of amounts does not arise in his case. It is further submitted that earlier, respondent No.2 had already issued proceedings Rc.No.994lCSW/D&ES/20O8 dated 12.12.2OO8, to recover the misappropriated amount of Rs.7,25,440/- from Dr. Kavitha, MC and DDO of PP Unit, Sangareddy. As such, issuing the impugned proceedings dated 13.08.2019, after a long lapse of almost ten yea-rs from the date of issuing the article of charge is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and therefore, it is prayed to allow the present writ petitions by setting aside the impugtred orders dated 13.08.2019.

7. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have not communicated the enquiry report to the petitioner, before the issuance of the impugned orders. It can be seen from the impugned orders that the enquiry officer had held the charge against the petitioner as not proved, but the disciplinary authority decided to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer and chose to impose the impugned punishment on the petitioner. Hence, as per the Rules, if the disciplinary authority decides to disagree with the findings of the 5 PK, J W.P.No.27418 & 22944 of 2O19 enquiry officer, a notice has to be issued, intimating the reasons for disagreement. However, without following the due procedure, the resBondents issued the present impugned order. Therefore, on this ground alone, ttrc impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

8. It is further submitted that the petitioner, on being aggrieved with the suspension orders dated 29.12.20O8, approached the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.432 of 20O9 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.02.20O9, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service, pending disciplinary proceedings, and also to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against him within a period of three montl:s from the date o[ receipt of a copy of that order. In compliance of the initial portion of the said order, the respondents reinstated the petitioner into service and posted him to DM & HO Office, Sangareddy District. However, despite the specilic direction to conclude the enquiry within three months, for the reasons best known to the respondents, they failed to conclude the same, and therefore, imposition of the impugned punishment vide impugned orders is illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutional, therefore, it is once again prayed to allow the present writ petitions, setting aside the both the impugned orders vide G.O.Rt.Nos.4l0 and 41I, dated 13.08.20i9. 6 PK, J W.P.N2.274l8 & 22944 of 20 19 -

9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf ol the respondents submits that the Commissioner of Family Welfare and Ex- officio Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare, vide his O.O. t.tt.. dated 12.12.2O08, had inlormed that Sri M. Srinivas and Sri R. Rajendra Prasad have made a complaint against Dr. Kavitha, the then Medical Oflicer, PP Unit, Sangareddy, Medak District (erstwhile), alleging the misappropriation of family planning compensation money by falsihcation of sterilization of PP Unit, Sangareddy, Medak District. As such, the matter was enquired duly sending the State Evaluation Team to the PP Unit, Sangareddy, ftom 22.O9.2OO8 to 27.O9.2OO8, and the Team had found that an amount of Rs.7,25,440/- had been misappropriated. Accordingly, the District Medical and Health Ofliccr, Medak, was requested to recover the said amount from Dr. Kavitha, the then Medical Officer and DDO, and also requested respondent No'2 to take disciplinary action against her. Further, the Government, after examining the matter, observed that there were grave violations committed not only by Dr. Kavitha but also by the petitioner, hence, instructed respondent No.2 to place both of them under suspension and initiate necessary disciplinary action, Memo.No.225O8 /VC.ll /2OO8- I dated 24.12.2OO8. Accordingly, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 24.12.2008, - 7 PK, J W.P.No.27418 & 22944 of 20 19 and a Charge Memo dated LO.O2.2OO9 was issued. However, pending disciplinary proceedings, the suspension order was revoked, and the petitioner was reinstated into service vide G.O.Rt.No.741 dated 07 .06.2OOg . Thereafter, Additional Director (Administration), oflice of respondent No.2 was appointed as the enquiry ofltcer to enquiry into the charge framed against the petitioner as well as Dr. Kavitha, vide Memo dated 08. 12.20O9. Subsequently, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report dated 11.01.20i9 to respondent No.2. In turn, respondent No.2, vide letter dated 16.02.2019, has forwarded the said enquiry report to respondent No.2, and only after examining the enquiry report and in due exercise of Rule 9 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, respondent No. 1 had imposed a minor penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, on the petitioner vide G,O.Rt.No.41O dated

13.08.2019, and also issued G.O.Rt.No.4l 1 dated 13.08.2019, to recover the misappropriated amounts from the petitioner. As such, the respondents are justilied in imposing the impugned penalty and also in proposing to effect the recovery of misappropriated amounts. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. lO. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 8 - PK, J W.P.No.27418 & 22944 of 2Ol9 1 1. A perusal of the record discloses that while the petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the PP Unit, Sangareddy' erstwhile Medak District, he was initially placed under suspension vide order dated 29.12.2008, and was issued with an Article of Charge vide Charge Memo in Rc.No.0353/2g lVCJfi-C l08 d'ated |O'O2'2O09' framing the lolIowing charge : "That Sri Ch. Nagaraju, Junior Assistant, (u/s), PP Unit' Sung. Reddy, Medak District has involoved in misa:ppropriati,oin of the Govt Funds an amount of Rs' i,ZS,icO) towards the payment of Famill' Planning Compensation Money by fa-lsihcation of the sterilization case in Pp Unit, Sasnga Reddy, Medak District for the year 2OO6- Ol , ZOOZ -OS n 'ta ZOOA-OS (upto the quarter ending with June, 2OO8). Thereby, he failed to maintain absolute integrity, discipline and devotion to duty alrd exhibited unbecoming of a Govemment Sewant and violated f "tri"io". Rute-3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 "

12. Although thc petitioner submitted a representation dated to furnish the relevant 23.O2.2OO9, requestrng the respondents documents for framing Instead, the respondents proceeded with the appointment of an enquiry the charge, the same was not considered. officer to conduct enquiry against the petitioner'

13. The petitioner challenged his suspension order by filing o.A'No.432of20ogbeforetheerstwhileAndhraPradeshAdministrative Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 24'02'2009' directing 9 PK, J W.P.No.274I8 & 22944 of 20tg and also to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service conclude the clisciplinary proceedings rvithin three months. Despite the same, respondr:n t No. I appointed the enquiry officer only on O8.12.2OOT, and on I2.OZ.2}ll, respondent No.2 directed the enquiry officer to conduct a detailed enquiry, but only alter almost nine vears of the issuance of thc charge memo, the enquiry proceedings actua_lly which eventually led ro the imposition of thc impugned Ho\.r,ever, no cogent reasons lor this enormous delaV in been assigned by the concluding thc disciplinary proceedings have respondents. punishmen t. commenced,

14. The petitioner spccifically contended that the enqulry report was affidavit filed by the not furnished to him. Ilowever, the counter respondents is silent on this specifir; contention. Hencc, in the absence of any denial, it can be inferred that the enqulry report was not furnished to thc petilioner, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice and cont ravcnes the settled proposition of law. 15. F\rther, Iiom a perusal of the impugned orders, it is quite evident that the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry reporr, explicitly holding the charge leveled against the petitioner as not proved. However, despite the same, respondent No. I issued the impugned orders. In this i - 10 PK, J W.P.N,.27418 & 22944 oI20 l9 context, it is relevant to refer to Rule 21 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, which reads as undcr: "Action on the inquiry report: 21 (1) The disciplinary authority, il it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be rccorded by it in writing. remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 2O as lar as mav be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of thc rcport of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not thc inquiring authority a copy of the rcport of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative rcasons for disagreement, if arry, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article o[ charge to the Government servant who shall be rcquired to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within hftecn days, irrespective of whether the report is favorable or not to the (lovernmcnt servant."

16. The above Rule mandates that when the disciplinary authority disagrees with thc findings of the enquiry ofhcer, it must provide detailed reasons for such disagreement, to the delinquent, ald afford him an opportunity of providing his explanation. However, in the instant case, the disciplinary authority failed to record any specific reasons for such disagreement, and unilaterally imposed the impugncd punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative cffect on the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are procedural inhrmities in the conduct ol disciplinary proceedings. )1, PK, J W.P.No.2741tt & 22944 of 2019 L7- It is also evident from the record that even prior to issuance of the Charge Memo to the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued proceedings in Rc. No.994lCSW/ D&tr8/2008 dated t2.t2.2OOa. directing recovery of the misappropriated amount of Rs.7,2S,4 40 /- from one Dr. K. Kavitha, Medical Officer and Drawing and Disbursing Officer, pp Unit, Ilowever, no logical basis has been provrded by the Sangzrreddy. for now recovering the very same amount from the petitioner. Further, the enquiry officer has also categorically held the charge against rhe pctitioner as not proved. Therefore, this court does nol. find any valid -justification in the action of the rcspondents in issuing the impugned G.o.Rt.No.4 r 1 dated r3.0g.2o 19, to recover the misappropriated amount from the petitioner. respondents

18. [n the fcrregoing discussion, this court is of the view that +Ac impugned punishment order <iatec_[ and the order of recoverv, both dated 13.O8.2O19 are unsustainable in the eye of l.aw, and therefore, they are liablc to be set asidc.

19. Accordingly, the writ petitions are alrowcd setting aside the impugned punishment order vide G.O.Rt.No.4l0, Health, Medical ald Family Welfare (VC.t) Department dated 13.08.2019 and the order of recovery vide G.O.Rr.No.4 1 1, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.l) Department dat<:d 13.OS.2019, issued by responclent No. I Howevcr, in 12 - PK, J W.P.No.27418 & 22944 of 2O 19 respect of the regularization of the petitioner's suspension period from

29.12.2008 to 29.O7.2OO9, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this ordcr. [n thc event any such representation is made, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordancc with law, and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. Miscellaleous applications, i[ an1', pendir-rg in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY' SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI EPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 2

1. The Principal Secreta ry, Health, Medical and Fa Secretariat Buildi ngs, State of Telangana at Hyde The Director of Public Health and Family Welfare Koti, Hyderabad. The District Medi cal and Health Officer, San gareddy District. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES -ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] One CC to SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies are Department, Welf d 4 6 To SA BS YV HIGH COURT DATED:0310312025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.27418 AND 22944 ot 20'19 b-H 1 S r A t' ( e l 3 2i ttlAl ?0[ I uI S ;\I c I ALLOWING THE BOTH WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS. \c ,.eq4