( 1 ) THE petitioner, while working as the Assistant Divisional Engineer with the respondents at Ramachandrapuram, was transferred to Lower Sileru Project, East godavari District, vide proceedings dated 28-11-1991. On his representation, expressing his inability to join at Sileru Project, he was given posting orders on 28-10-1992 to join at Manuguru. Since the petitioner did not join duty thereat and did not apply for leave, a charge-sheet was issued on 18-10-1993 to the following effect:"it is reported that Sri G. Gangaram, assistant Divisional Engineer (Elecl.) has absconded from duty with effect from 29-10-1991 by deserting that post and absconded himself unauthorisedly thereafter without applying for any leave. This constitutes misconduct as per a. P. S. E. Board (Revised) Conduct regulations"

( 2 ) THE petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet; on 17-1-1994. Not being satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered wherein the charge levelled against the petitioner was held proved. A show-cause notice was issued on 29-4-1994, enclosing a copy of the Enquiry Report, asking the petitioner to show-cause as to why stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect not be imposed besides treating the period of unauthorized absence from 29-10-1991 till the date of joining duty should not be treated as dies non. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show-cause notice resulting in the impugned order dated 25-8-1994 being passed by the 1st respondent whereby the petitioner was imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect besides treating the period of unauthorized absence from 29-10-1991 till the date of joining duty as dies non as the allegation of unauthorized absence and his non-submission of immovable property statement were held proved. (emphasis supplied)

( 3 ) SRI A. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while the charge, as specified in the charge memo dated 18-10-1993, related only to unauthorized absence for which a departmental enquiry was conducted and consequent upon which the show-cause notice was issued, in the said show-cause notice dated 29-4-1994 another allegation, relating to an enquiry conducted by the anti Corruption Bureau was also included though the said allegation did not form part either of the charge-sheet dated 18-10-1993 nor was it the subject-matter of the departmental enquiry. He refers to Paragraph 3 of the show-cause notice dated 29-4-1994 which reads as under:"in addition to the above, during the enquiry conducted by And Corruption bureau it was revealed that Smt. G. Sunitha w/o Sri G. Gangaram, Asst. Divisional engineer (Elecl.) had purchased in 4/85 a plot of 275 Sq. yards at a cost of rs. 11,000/- + registration charges of rs. 412. 50 at Sikh Village, Secunderabad and constructed a house thereon. He has failed to intimate to the Board about the purchase of site and construction of house by his wife as required under Regulation - 5 of the A. P. S. E. Board Employees (Revised) Conduct Regulations. He has also failed to file Annual Property Returns as required under Regulation 5 of the a. P. S. E. Board Employees (Revised) conduct Regulations"

( 4 ) SRI A. Sanjeev Kumar contends that since the punishment imposed on the petitioner was on the basis of the allegations, of both unauthorized absence and non-submission of immovable property statements having been held proved, the order of punishment is liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the allegation of non-submission of immovable property statement was neither the subject-matter of the charge memo dated 18-10-1993 nor was it the subject-matter of the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner. Sri A. Sanjeev Kumar further contends that the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration extraneous factors, neither part of the charge memo nor the subject-matter of departmental enquiry, while imposing punishment on the petitioner and as such the or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document