P.Gopal Reddy v. The Govt. of A.P. & Ors.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU WRIT PETITION No.132 of 2004 AND CONTEMPT CASE No. 1672 of 2004 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) In this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.5307 of 1999, dated 10.09.2003 whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner against the imposition of penalty of 10% cut in the eligible pension pursuant to the departmental enquiry initiated against him for certain lapses was dismissed. The relevant facts in nutshell are that, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while working as District Medical and Health Officer, Adilabad for the irregularities said to have been committed by him in connection with the selections for the posts of Pharmacists sand Nursing Orderlies for Adilabad District. He was issued with a charge memo, dated 14.7.1994 framing as many as six charges that (1) he failed to award the interview marks as specified in G.O.Ms.No.434, M & H Department, dated 9.3.1990; (2) he has not taken into cognizance of the Adilabad qualifications/experience/extra- curriculum activities of the candidates; (3) he failed to fill up 30% of posts reserved for the woman candidates as per instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.2, G.A.D., dated 2.1.1984; (4) he deviated with the number of posts of Pharmacists notified to employment exchange and posts actually filled in; (5) Two posts of S.Cs and two posts of S.Ts. have not been carried forward, but one extra posts in each of the O.C. and B.C. ‘D’ have been filled up which is against the rule of reservation; and (6) as per guidelines issued in the G.O., the results of the selections shall be announced on the same day after the finalization of the list, but the results were announced on the next day of the selection. On petitioner submitting explanation to the charge memo, the District Collector, Adilabad District, who was appointed as enquiry officer, without conducting a regular departmental enquiry into the allegations, submitted his report on 10.2.1995 holding that except charge No.6, the other charges were held to be proved and thereby recommended for suitable action. On receipt of enquiry report, a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 2.5.1995 calling upon his explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under Rule 3 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, to which, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 31.5.1995 denying all the charges and contending that the enquiry officer without there being any regular enquiry into the allegations held the charges proved and thereby no opportunity was given to him to prove his innocence. The Government after examining the report of the enquiry officer as well as the explanation submitted by the petitioner, imposed penalty of 10% cut in the eligible pension of the petitioner by issuing G.O.Ms.No.132, Medical, Health and Family Welfare (B.1) Department, dated

28.3.1998. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5307 of 1999 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the O.A. holding that there was no procedural irregularity involved while imposing the punishment and that the conclusions are arrived based on the evidence and the enquiry report submitted by the District Collector. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present writ petition is filed. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the selection committee is constituted with three members of which, the petitioner is Chairman, no disciplinary action is initiated against other two members, who are also collectively responsible for the selection. In spite of submitting the suitable explanation denying the charges, no enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer to prove the allegations but he simply submitted his report only considering the explanation so offered by the petitioner, which is a procedural irregularity committed by the disciplinary authority and that since the punishment imposed is a major punishment, a regular departmental enquiry has to be conducted before imposing the punishment. Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘Rules’) envisages the procedure for imposing the penalties. Rule 20 specifies that ‘no order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this Rule and Rule 21 or in the manner provided by the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 or the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-lokayukta Act, 1983, where such inquiry is held under the said Acts.’ It is not disputed that the District Collector-Adilabad District was appointed as enquiry officer under Rule 19(1) (a) of the Rules to conduct enquiry into the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner in the process of recruitment for the posts of Pharmacists sand Nursing Orderlies for Adilabad District, who submitted his report on 10.2.1995 holding that except charge No.6, all other charges were held to be proved. The imposition of penalty of 10% cut in the eligible pension of the petitioner is a major penalty, which falls under proviso (ii) of Rule 9(x) of the Rules. It is now fairly admitted by the learned Government Pleader for Services-I that no regular enquiry as such was conducted against the petitioner and the charges have not been proved by examining any witnesses. In view of the same, the finding of the Tribunal that no procedural irregularity was involved while imposing the punishment of withholding of pension and that the conclusions arrived by the enquiry officer are based on evidence is not borne from the record inasmuch as no enquiry has been held and no evidence has been recorded to prove the guilt of the petitioner, which vitiates the entire process of departmental enquiry. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is not only in violation of principles of natural justice but also in violation of Rule 20 of the Rules. Accordingly, the imposition of penalty of 10% cut in the eligible pension of the petitioner imposed by the disciplinary authority as confirmed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad O.A.No.5307 of 1999 is hereby set aside. Coming to the Contempt Case, it is represented that the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.198 of 2004 has already been implemented by canceling (sic. suspending) the G.O.Ms.No.132, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (B.1) Department, dated 22.3.1996 whereby the imposition of penalty of 10% cut in the pension of the petitioner was imposed. In view of the same, no adjudication is called for in the contempt case. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the contempt case is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) ____________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) NOVEMBER 11, 2009 TSR