Back
The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.
V. Shivanna – Petitioner
Versus
A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Another – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13610 of 2012
Decided On : 31-03-2015
APCS (Conduct) rules 1964 – Rule 3 – APSHCL, (Conduct) Rules 1997 – Employment and Service matter – Dismissal from service – Recovery of amount towards loss said to have been caused to the Corporation – Challenged – Offence of Misappropriation of certain amounts – Petitioner is employed as a Deputy Executive Engineer with State Housing Corporation Limited, mounts a challenge to legality and validity of the order passed on by first respondent Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited imposing on him the punishment of dismissal from service, apart from ordering for recovery of the amount towards loss said to have been caused to the Corporation – Petitioner was initially recruited as a Work Inspector by respondent-Corporation in the year 1988 and subsequently he was promoted as an Assistant Engineer – He was further promoted as a Deputy Executive Engineer on and posted as such at District – He was initially placed under suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings, by an order as serious allegations of misappropriation of certain amounts were made against him – A charge-sheet comprising of two charges has been framed – Held, Framed against the petitioner, must be made available to him duly providing him reasonable time to react and respond to it, so that he will be able to produce and establish any contradictions or any valid – Failure to examine the two witnesses in the presence of the petitioner and instead, placing reliance upon the statements made by them before the same Inquiry Officer in connection with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against them separately has resulted in denial of a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. In other words, the material, which has been gathered behind the back of the petitioner, is put to use without affording any opportunity whatsoever to offer his thereto and he has been faulted on the basis of such material. For denying the opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine those two witnesses and also for denying the opportunity to explain the adverse material that was found against him from the data collected from cannot but hold that the Inquiry Officer’s Report cannot be accepted as it is not in conformity with the procedure prescribed under Rule-20 of Rules read with principles of natural justice fact Corporation that has initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner on the ground that he was guilty of gross misconduct was required of Corporation to hold a detailed enquiry in the presence of the petitioner, whereat appropriate material evidence in support of the charges laid against him should be gathered in his presence and thereafter if he desires to bring on record contra evidence, he should be provided a fair opportunity to do so. Then a careful consideration should be shown to the entire evidence. It is a settled principle that any person, who is likely to be visited with grave and serious consequences, must necessarily be provided a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend properly and principles of natural justice have got to be adhered to at every stage faithfully. For sheer failure to do so in the instant case, the impugned order of termination, which, in turn, is based upon the Inquiry Officer’s Report, has got to be set aside – Petition stands disposed.
The petitioner, who is employed as a Deputy Executive Engineer with the A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, mounts a challenge to the legality and validity of the order passed on 21.04.2012 by the first respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited (henceforth referred to as ‘the Corporation’) imposing on him the punishment of dismissal from service, apart from ordering for recovery of the amount towards loss said to have been caused to the Corporation.
Heard Sri K.G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mahadeva Kantrigala and Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent-Corporation.
It appears, the petitioner was initially recruited as a Work Inspector (Technical) by the respondent-Corporation in the year 1988 and subsequently he was promoted as an Assistant Engineer (Graduate) on 03.04.2006. He was further promoted as a Deputy Executive Engineer on 01.11.2008 and posted as such at C.K. Palli Sub-Division, Anantapur District. He was initially placed under suspension, pending disciplinary proceedings, by an order dated 16.10.2009, as serious allegations of misappropriation of certain amounts were made against him. A charge-sheet comprising of the following two charges has been framed on 24.12.2009.
“ARTICLE-1
That Sri V. Sivanna, Dy.EE(II) (U/s) of C.K. Palli Sub-Division of Anantapur district committed certain grave misconduct in as much as he resorted to corruption practices in collusion with beneficiaries of M.C. Palli and Nasannakota villages of C.K. Palli Sub-Division and not started houses and without construction of houses to a tune of Rs.1,69,12,350/- and thereby violated provisions of the APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 read with APSHCL, (Conduct) Rules, 1997.”
| Sl.No. | Name of the village | No of houses not constructed | Amount misappropriated |
| 1 | M.C.Palli | 459 | 1,03,66,350 |
| 2 | Nasannakota | 382 | 65,46,000 |
|
| Total | 841 | 1,69,12,350 |
ARTICLE-2
That Sri V. Sivanna, Dy.EE(II) (U/s) of C.K. Palli Sub-Division of Anantapur district, on 25.02.2009 & 26.02.2009 has requested the Branch Manager, SBH Dharmavaram to stop the payment to V.Os, since, the Assistant Engineer (H) C.K. Palli Sub-Division has generated the PROs without MHOs recommendations. Subsequently, the Dy. Executive Engineer (H), C.K. Palli on 28.02.2009 and 2.3.2009 requested the Bank authorities to release the payments without actually having MHO recommendations with him.
Thus, Sri V. Sivanna, Dy.EE(II) (U/s) of C.K. Palli Sub-Division of Anantapur district by his above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty, conduct unbecoming of a public servant and thereby contravened rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) rules 1964 read with APSHCL, (Conduct) Rules 1997.”
The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet on 02.02.2010 denying his culpability behind the charges. A Special Officer working in the first respondent-Corporation has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer for conducting a detailed enquiry, through the proceedings dated 20.03.2010.
The Special Officer –cum- Inquiry Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Chittoor & Anantapur Districts, through her communication dated 06-04-2010, directed the writ petitioner to present himself in the Office of the Project Director (Housing), Anantapur, at 11-00 am on 12-04-2010 to provide his explanation.
Since the petitioner was placed under suspension, the said communication has been forwarded to the Executive Engineer (Housing), Dharmavaram Division in Anantapur District as he was not available at C.K.Palli Sub-Division. Again, through another communication dated 26-04-2010, the petitioner was asked to appear before the Inquiry Officer on 12-05-2010. It appears, the petitioner has not appeared before the Inquiry Officer. The Special Off
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
