Point of law: Whenever an inquiring authority is to be appointed for conducting enquiry under the said rules, they are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates for their guidance and compliance.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16, 21, 226 – Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 – Rules 20, 21 and 37 – Promotion – Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the proceedings in Rc. including the proceedings in Rc. issued by the first respondent, the consequential proceedings issued by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, against the principles of natural justice, apart from contrary to Rules 20, 21 and 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and set-aside the same and issue consequential direction directing the respondents to forthwith consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Tahsildar in Zone-I as per his seniority before promoting any juniors to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Finding of court: Inquiry Report is illegal and not in compliance of mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the Rules. On this ground, the Inquiry Report is liable to be set-aside, declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary. – As a sequel of setting-aside Inquiry Report, the penalty imposed against this petitioner i.e. stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is liable to be set-aside. – Accordingly, the Inquiry Report submitted by the fourth respondent to the first respondent and the major penalty imposed by the first respondent are hereby set-aside. – However, this will not preclude the first respondent to order fresh enquiry, if advised, with a direction to conduct enquiry by strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under the Rules. – One of the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner to the next higher cadre consequent upon setting-aside the Inquiry Report and major penalty imposed against this petitioner. – No doubt, when this Court set-aside the Inquiry Report and consequently, the penalty imposed upon this petitioner, the departmental proceedings are deemed to have been ended, unless fresh departmental enquiry is ordered, as observed in the earlier paragraphs. – Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher cadre on par with his juniors in terms of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. – Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of this petitioner for promotion to the next higher cadre, if he is otherwise eligible.
Result: Writ Petition Allowed

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.581/2018/A2 dated 02.12.2018 including the proceedings in Rc.No.581/2018/A2 dated 10.06.2018 issued by the first respondent, the consequential proceedings No.VS.I(3)/1321/2019 dated 26.08.2020 issued by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, against the principles of natural justice, apart from contrary to Rules 20, 21 and 37 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’) and set-aside the same and issue consequential direction directing the respondents to forthwith consider and promote the petitioner to the post of Tahsildar in Zone-I as per his seniority before promoting any juniors to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

The facts of the case in brief are that, the petitioner joined in service on 02.07.1995 and later promoted to the post of Deputy Tahsildar on 23.05.2005. Later, the second respondent/Chief Commissioner of Land Administration by proceedings dated 29.04.2020 included the name of this petitioner for the panel year 2014-2015 of Deputy Tahsildars in Srikakulam District and 01.09.2013 as date of promotion to the cadre of Deputy Thasildar to the petitioner. Subsequently, vide proceedings dated 13.05.2020 the petitioner was included in the year 2014-2015 in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars, but changed the date of promotion as 01.09.2014 from 01.09.2013. As per the approved panel for 2014-2015, in the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar for Zone-I, the name of the petitioner was placed at Serial No.7 while including the petitioner in the year 2014-2015 panel of Deputy Tahsildar.

On 18.04.2018, the first respondent/Collector & District Magistrate, Srikakulam issued a charge memo alleging that the petitioner committed certain irregularities while performing his duties while he was working as Deputy Tahsildar, MLS Point Incharge, Kothuru, framed three charges, issued Charge Memo and called upon this petitioner to file written statement in terms of Rule 20 of The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Rules’)

On receipt of charge memo, the petitioner submitted detailed explanation/written statement twice on 04.05.2018 to the first respondent, denying charges framed against this petitioner and demonstrated that he did commit no any illegalities or irregularities.

The fourth respondent issued urgent notice by proceedings dated 09.07.2018 directing the petitioner to attend the inquiry on 20.06.2019 at 11.00 a.m at Tahsildar’s office, Kothuru, referring proceedings dated 10.06.2018 of the Collector, Srikakulam stating that the petitioner committed irregularities i.e issuing PDS stock to the Fair Price Shops without release orders and not updated the stock register day-to-day basis. Finally, submitted enquiry report by the second respondent which is now challenged.

The main grounds urged by the petitioner before this Court are as follows:

a) The petitioner is not guilty of any misconduct, despite submitting an explanation dated 04.05.2018 twice to the charge memo, the first respondent did not consider the explanation in proper perspective objectively and appointed the second respondent as an inquiry officer to conduct enquiry. Therefore, failure of the first respondent to consider the explanation objectively is contrary to Rule 20 of the Rules. On this ground, the very appointment of third respondent/ Special Chief Secretary, Revenue Department as an enquiry officer is liable to be set-aside.

b) The second respondent/enquiry officer did conduct no enquiry in the eye of law strictly adhering to Rule 20 of the Rules and the report submitted by the second respondent is suffice to conclude that, no enquiry was held strictly adhering to the Rules, therefore, the enquiry report is vitiated by illegalities and irregula

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(AP) 116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIM.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.Banala Naghabhushana Rao - Appellant VersusThe Collector And District Magistrate - RespondentWRIT PETITION NO.15427 OF 2020Decided On : 17-03-2021

Point of law: Whenever an inquiring authority is to be appointed for conducting enquiry under the said rules, they are also requested to bring these instructions to the notice of their subordinates for their guidance and compliance.

Cases Referred (3)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Banala Naghabhushana Rao - Appellant
Versus
The Collector And District Magistrate - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.15427 OF 2020
Decided On : 17-03-2021