Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Kannedhara Srinivasa Rao - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16709 of 2020
Decided On: 24.12.2020
For the Appellant :Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Advocate
For the Respondents: GP and Addanki Ramachandra Murthy N., SC
The failure to serve a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice and Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service Rules, 1991. The special law, in this case, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service Rules, 1991, prevails over the general law, and the State is bound to comply with it.
Headnote:
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - NON-SUPPLY OF INQUIRY REPORT - PREJUDICE - REINSTATEMENT - BACK-WAGES - BENEFITS - FRESH INQUIRY - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - SPECIAL LAW PREVAILS OVER GENERAL LAW - GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT - RULE 23 OF THE ANDHRA PRADESH CIVIL SERVICE RULES, 1991.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Junior Assistant in the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, was served with a show cause notice and subsequently faced departmental proceedings and an inquiry for alleged misconduct. An Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority, but the petitioner was not provided with a copy of the report. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of 'Compulsory Retirement' upon the petitioner without serving a copy of the inquiry report.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the failure to serve a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice and Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service Rules, 1991. The Court further held that the petitioner was entitled to a copy of the inquiry report if the inquiry was conducted by an officer other than the Disciplinary Authority. The Court also held that the special law, in this case, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service Rules, 1991, prevails over the general law, and the State is bound to comply with it.
Issues: 1. Whether the failure to serve a copy of the inquiry report vitiates the penalty imposed upon the petitioner? 2. Whether the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is liable to be set-aside?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the failure to serve a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner violated the principles of natural justice and Rule 23 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service Rules, 1991. The Court further held that the petitioner was entitled to a copy of the inquiry report if the inquiry was conducted by an officer other than the Disciplinary Authority. 2. The Court held that the special law, in this case, the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service Rules, 1991, prevails over the general law, and the State is bound to comply with it.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the final order imposing the penalty of 'Compulsory Retirement', and directed the Disciplinary Authority to serve a copy of the inquiry report along with other material papers to the petitioner. The Court also directed the Disciplinary Authority to call for a representation from the petitioner and pass an appropriate reasoned order in accordance with the law within two months.
ORDER :
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings dated 31.10.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary illegal and capricious and consequently set aside the same by directing that the petitioner is eligible for all the benefits from 31.10.2018 including reinstatement and increments."
2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that, the petitioner joined the service of the second respondent/Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission on 09.06.1995 as Junior Assistant through Group-II recruitment. Since then, he has been serving the Commission without any complaint from any corner whatsoever. Subsequently, he has been promoted to the post of Assistant Section Officer and later to the post of Section Officer in the year 2012. While so, on 26.08.2016, a show cause notice was served to the petitioner referring a representation dated 01.06.2016 and 24.08.2016 made by one Amarjit Kaur, Junior Assistant, outsourcing TSPSC, proposing to take action as per Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service Rules, 1991 (for short 'The Rules') and called for reply within ten days from the receipt of show cause notice.
3. In obedience to the show cause notice, reply was given by the petitioner on 26.10.2016 denying the material allegations. However, dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner and ultimately an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner was found guilty after full-fledged enquiry conducted under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Service Rules, 1991.
4. After completion of enquiry, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority, without serving a copy of the report to this petitioner and final order was passed imposing major penalty of 'Compulsory Retirement' from service. The same is now challenged on the ground that, a copy of the report was not served to call for representation of this petitioner in terms of Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Service Rules, 1991 and it is illegal and against the principles of natural justice.
5. Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit, whereas, learned Standing Counsel for second respondent/Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission contended that, though copy was served, enquiry report is not required to be served on the petitioner. Therefore, failure to serve copy of the enquiry report is not a ground to question the final order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing major penalty of 'Compulsory Retirement' upon the petitioner and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether failure to serve copy of the enquiry report vitiates the penalty imposed upon the petitioner/employee. If so, whether the order passed by the disciplinary authority/second respondent is liable to be set-aside?"
POINT:
7. Rule 20 of the Rules prescribes certain procedure to be followed for conducting enquiry and the disciplinary authority itself can inquire into the charges of misconduct or appoint a different inquiring officer. In the present case, the disciplinary authority did not conduct any inquiry, but appointed another officer as an Inquiry Officer, who in-turn conducted necessary enquiry, recorded finding against this petitioner, concluded and submitted report, in compliance of Rule 20 of the Rules. When once the inquiry is completed by the disciplinary authority or on receipt of enquiry report from the inquiry officer by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority can pass appropriate order of punishment by following Rule 23 of the Rules. But, there is a distinction in the procedure
