JUDGMENT

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 16176 of 2014, whereby the writ petition challenging G.O. Ms. No. 30, Irrigation & Command Area Development (IW: Services VI 1) Department dated 29.05.2014, ordering for prosecution of the petitioner (appellant herein) was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.M. Subhani, learned standing counsel for Anti Corruption Bureau, appearing for respondent No. 2.

3. Appellant in the present appeal shall be referred to as the petitioner.

4. The case of the petitioner, in short, as presented in the writ affidavit is that the petitioner joined as Assistant Executive Engineer on 10.11.1987 and was subsequently promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer in HLC Localization Sub-Division, Garladinne, Anantapur Division on 08.12.2007. While serving as such, respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, registered a case in Cr. No. 3/RCA-ATP/2010 under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act of 1988") alleging that petitioner is in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income. Respondent No. 2 had served a notice dated 21.01.2011 calling for explanation. The petitioner had submitted explanation controverting the alleged assessment of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 73,09,792/- and contending that value of assets possessed by him and his family members are to the tune of Rs. 46,88,762/-, which is well within the income from legitimate/licit and declared sources against the likely savings i.e. Rs. 69,74,538/- and, accordingly, prayed for dropping further action.

5. Respondent No. 2, by letter dated 20.03.2013, recommended prosecuting the petitioner under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988. However, the Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation and Command Area Development (Ser. VI) Department, i.e. respondent No. 1 issued memo dated 07.12.2013, stating that it was decided to conduct a departmental enquiry into the charges instead of prosecution. Subsequently, on that very date, by G.O. Rt. No. 1171 dated 07.12.2013, it was proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner in terms of Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 (for short, "the Rules"). A copy of the articles of charges, statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be proved and a list of documents in support of charges proposed to be sustained, were enclosed at Annexures I, II, II & IV respectively.

6. The two charges framed are as follows:

"Charge-I: He neither obtained prior permission from the competent authority nor intimated to the competent authority in respect of the purchase of the Movable and Immovable assets purchased in his name and in the name of his family members as mentioned in Annexure - I.

Charge-II: He did not submit Annual Property Returns to the competent authority during his service i.e., from 10.11.1987 to 09.04.2010."

7. It is stated that by the above-mentioned acts, the petitioner exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby contravened Rules 3(1), (2) and 9(1), (2) & (7) of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964."

8. Subsequently, respondent No. 1, by G.O. Ms. No. 30 Irrigation & Command Area Development (IW: Services VI 1) Department dated 29.05.2014, in exercise of powers conferred under clause (b) of sub-section 1 of Section 19 of the Act of 1988, accorded sanction for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 and for any other cognate offences punishable under any other provisions of law. Challenging the aforesaid G.O., the writ petition came to be filed.

9. The learned single Judg