Smt. T.Prema v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a Writ of [\/andamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders declaring the Orders in G.O.Rt. No 440, Transport, Road and Building Ser and VIG-2 Department dated .04-08-2017 issued by the 2 respondent Government as wholly arbitrary, illegal, off endinds thePrinciples of Natural Justice and Void and Consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Regional Transport Officer with effect from August 2009 and pay all consequential benefits. lA NO: 2 OF 2017 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the order in G.O.Rt.No.440 Transport, Roads and Buildings (ser and VIG-2) Department, dated o4_o}_2017 of the 2nd respondent_ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p.CHANDRAMOULI, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR SRI CH.SATYASADHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES_I The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp_443A9 _201.1 NBK, I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH B HEEIVIAPAKA WRIT PETITIO N No.44389 of 2017 ORDER: ThepetitionerhasfiledthepresentWritPetitionunderArticle226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the 2"d respondent issued in G.O.Rt.No.440, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Ser & VIG-2) Department dated 04-08-2017, wtrereby a penalty of withholding 27o pension for one year along with recovery of Rs'5,000/- was imposed' lt is her case that, while serving as Administrative Officer in the Transport Section of the Office of the Jofnt 1'ransport Commissioner & Secretary' RIA, Hyderabad, she u'as gerved with a charge merno dated l1-09-2006 by the 3'd respondent, the Transport Commissioner, alleging three charges of misconduct under Rule 3(1), 3(2), and 3(5) of the A'P' Civil Services (Conduct) Rutes, 1964. The first charge, which pertained to approval of files without reservation applications, was dropped' The second charge allegedprematureapprovalofregistrationnumberreservationsbefore l:00 p.m. in violation of Rule 81 as amended by G'O'Ms'No'95' dated 28-Odr20O2,though the petitioner contends that the Registering Authority (RTO) alone reserves the number post- l:00 p'm', and that she only dealt with the files post-allotment, thus the allegation based on a time stamp of 12:13 p.m. is factually and procedurally incorrect' The third cl.rarge related to reservation of number AP09 X 7155 on l1-06-2004' with the fi le reaching her on 14-06-2004 due to holidays on 1 2th and 1 3'h June' was also held baseless by the petitioner' She contends that the enquiry was co&ducted jointly against 16 employees on 04-04-2008 in a perfunc;tory \r L wp _44389 _201,7 NBK, J 1 manner. with only one witness, K.S. Srinivasa Raju, cited, who was not competent to speak on the approval process but only on computer entries. It is stated that vital files and documents, including the application forms referred in Annexures II to IV, were not produced. The petitioner submitted hel detailed explanation dated 18-ll-2006 after perusing the records on 06- I I -2006. and later gave representations dated 28- 10-2010 and 02-04-2014 exptaining that she acted on files post-approval by the RTO and that Rs.5,000/- was collected through DD and remitted to the Govemment, denf ing any financial loss. She further submitted that the RTO, who had actual authority over allotments, was neither charged nor examined. Despite her 37 years cilunblemished service and her eligibilify for promotion to the post of,Regional Transport Officer liom 2009, the pending disciptinary action hindered her advancement. Her contentions in the representation were not addressed, and the impugned order was passed mechanically, violating the principles of natural justice. The Govemment has not yet implemented the said order, and the petitioner prays that further proceedings under G.O.Rt.No.440 dated 04-08-201i be stayed and that the order be declared illegal, arbitrary, void, and in violatidn of principles of natural justice, with a consequential direction to promote her as Regional Transport Offrcer with effect front August 2009 along with all attendant benefits.

2. Heard Mr. P. Chandramouli, leamed Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Ch. Satya Sadhan, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and learned Govemment Pleader for Ser-vices-I. Perused the record. .d

3. Lcarned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner wou [d essentially contend that the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent in G.O.Rt.No.440 dated 04.08.2017, imposing a2oh cut in pension fbr one year and recovery of Rs.5,000/-, is arbitrary and illegal' inasmuch as the enquiry proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities, denial of reasonable opportunity, and undue delay' It is contended that the petitioner, a retired Administrative Oltcer, had acted in her official capacity without any mala fides and merely approved the reservation files based on the notings and clearance by the concerned clerks and assistants' with no independent role in initiating or processing the reservation of registration numbers; and the so-called irregularities were the result of systemic issues like power outages and technical failures, not attributable to the petitioner. It is contended that the enquiry oflicer did not record any specific finding of misconduct or dishonesty' and in fact acknowledged the absence of material evidence for some charges, and the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation rebutting the charges, which was not properly considered. It is also contended that the proceedings suffered from inordinate delay as the disciplinary enquiry was dragged fbr over a decade after her retirement, causing undue prejudice,, and the imposition of penalty is disproportionate and not sustainable, particularly when no wronqful gain to. the petitioner or loss to the public exchequer beyond ns.S,OOOi- was established; and that therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Learned.Government Pleader, basing on the counter af idavit filed 4. by respondent No.2, would essentially contend that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 20 of A'P'C'S' (CC&A) Rules' l99l were -=r _ 4 -44389 _2017 N8K, ] -'t initiated against the petitioner, along with 16 others, in relation to irregularities in resenation of vehicle registration nutnbers during her \ tenure from 0 I .01 .2004 to 3l .12.2005 in the office of the Joint Transport Commissioner & Secretary, RTA, Hyderabad; and that the charges were framed under Memo dated 1.A9.2006 for procedural violations, including approving reservation files without requisite applications, pre- closing public access to desirable registration numbers, and delaying number allocation to benefit .p""ifi" applicants, thereby violating Rule 3(l) & 3(2) of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964; that she was pemritted to peruse records vide Memo dated I 0. 10.2006 on 06. 1 I .2006 and 07. I 1 .2006, and she submitted her explanation on 18. I I .2006 claiming procedural compliance, citing technical delays and holidays. lt is contended that not being satisfied with her reply, the Government appointed Sri N.V. Subba Rao as Enquiry Officer through proceedings dated 25.08.2007, u.ho after enguiry submitted a repoft on 18.12.2009 holding charges as proved. It is contended that the report, communicated vide Memo dated,27.07.2010, was replied to by the petitioner with a request to drop proceedings, which was forwarded by the Transport Conirnissioner to Govemment on 06.03.2012 thatupon examination and consultation with the Vigilance Advisory Body and Telangana public Service Comm ission, the impugned order was issued; that delay in proceedings was due to the large number of co-delinquents and procedural requirements in a common enquiry involving examination of multiple explanations, witnesses, and documents; that petitioner's claim of denial of opportunity is baseless as all procedures were followed; that she filed I.A. No.2 of 2017 in W.P. No.44389 of 2O17 before this Court r t I 5 wp_44389_2011 NBK, J seeking suspension of the impugned order, which was granted by interim order dated 29.12.2017; and therefore it is prayed that the interim order may be vacated and the writ petition be dismissed in the interest oflustice.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record; it may be noted that the record reveals that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against l7 Govemment servants, inctuding the petitioner, for irregularities in reservation of vehicle registration numbers during 0l-01-2004 to 31-12-2005, under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S (CC & A) Rules, 1991. The petitioner was served with a charge memo vide Memo dated ll-09-2006, alleging approval of files with procedural irregularities, including p.ematr.e reservation of numbers and approvals without requisite applications, resulting in revenue loss of Rs. 5,0001. She was permitted to peruse relevant records as per TC office Memo dated l0-10-2006, and submitted her explanation on l8-11-2006, attributing lapses to clerical errors and technical issues. Dissatisfied with the explanation, a regular enquiry was ordered, and the Enquiry Officer Sri N.V. Subba Rao submitted his report on l8-12-2009, holding charges as proved. The petitioner was furnished with the enquiry report vide TC I Memo dated 27-07-2010, and her subsequent explanation was considered by the Govemment, which, after consulting the Telangana Public Sen'ice Commission, issued G.O.Rt.No. 440, dated 04-08-2017, imposing the penalty. The delay in concluding proceedings is attributable to the involvement of multiple officers and the need for comprehensive examination, and does not per se vitiate the proceedings. The petitioner was afforded due opportunity at each stage, and this Court does not find any illegality or disproportionality of punishment vis-ir-vis the 6 wp-44389 _2077 NBK, ] misconduct established. The writ petition. being devoid of merit, is liable for dismissal.

6. Accordingly', the writ petition is disrnissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR (it SECTTON OFFICER One CC to SRt CH.SATYASADHAN, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to Gp FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 a J BSR GJP t ,l ,i rI E t4 Ml,EI02 "1.-/ ,'' ilt t,) \/1 \ ) \ n ]' L ,r: , -,' ,,., HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.44389 of 2017 I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS o / 4 7 ,/z , / 4