IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.SESHA SAI, RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, JJ.
G. Chinna Yogeswara Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.P.No.23524 of 2018
Decided on : 21-02–2022
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 - Rule 9 - Illegalities/irregularities - Order of punishment - Charge memo - -Petitioner herein filed the said Original Application, questioning G.O., (Revenue Vig.IV.3) Department, imposing punishment of 10% cut in pension permanently. The Commissioner of Endowments-2nd respondent herein, vide R.C, issued a charge memo framing following charges against petitioner - In response to the said charge memo and the charges contained therein, petitioner herein submitted his explanation - Enquiry Officer, appointed by disciplinary authority, conducted enquiry and submitted a report. According to the said report charges stood proved, but the rest stood unproved - Held, Tested on the anvil of the law laid down by the Courts on the fair procedure to be followed in the enquiry, one would have no qualm of conscience to hold that every step taken by the enquiry officer in the present case is blatantly contrary to the settled legal principles. The enquiry officer has reduced the enquiry to a mockery. He has acted both as prosecutor and judge, which is forbidden by law - Hon’ble Supreme Court and the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that the order passed by the Tribunal confirming the order of the punishment is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law - Writ Petition is allowed.
ORDER :
In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the order dated 08.03.2017, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (herein after called the Tribunal) in O.A.No.9319 of 2013.
2. Petitioner herein filed the said Original Application, questioning G.O.Ms.Nos.1118, (Revenue Vig.IV.3) Department, dated 02.09.2010, imposing punishment of 10% cut in pension permanently. The Commissioner of Endowments-2nd respondent herein, vide R.C.No. VI/14693/98, dated 28.06.1999, issued a charge memo framing the following charges against the petitioner.
Charge No.2: That he directly utilised Mahasivarathri festival collections to a tune of Rs.1,51,600/- from 24.02.1998 to 26.02.1998 without remitting them in bank.
Charge No.3: That he debited abnormal expenditure to a tune of Rs.1,51,600/- when compared to previous expenditure for conducting Mahasivarathri Festival had held from 24.02.1998 to 26.02.1998 at Polathala Village without obtaining sanction of budget estimate or prior permission of the competent authority. The expenditure without sanction is not valid and to be recovered from the Executive Officer and credit to the temple account.
Charge No.4: That he debited false and suspicious expenditure of Rs.26,000/- towards printing charges of customary ticket books without either approval of quotations of prior permission of the competent authority when there are sufficient stock of old ticket books available in his office as detailed below.
| (a) Darshanam ticket books | No.of books | No.of tickets |
| (each book contains 500 leafs) | 90 | 35,000 |
| (b) Talaneelalu ticket books (each book contains 500 leafs) | 19 | 9,000 |
| Total | 109 | 45,500 |
Charge No.6: That he debited abnormal expenditure of Rs.37,214-00 to poor feeding during Mahasivarathri Festival days from 24-02-98 to 26-02-98 polathala. The amount spent under this head appears to be an exaggerated not reasonable without prior sanction. The unauthorized fictious expenditure needs recovery from the Executive Officer immediately.
Charge No.7: That he failed to produce the Stock Register of provisions purchased for poor feeding attested by the Chief festival officer of Mahasivaratri Festival held from 24-02-1998 to 26-02-1998. In absence of stock entry particulars for the expenditure of Rs.37,214/- is debited under this head is objectionable and needs recovery.
Charge No.8: That he wilfully failed to pay statutory payment of departmental contribution and audit fees to a tune due from the following temple though he is a paid servant.
|
| Year | Contribution | Audit fees |
| (1) Sri Veerabhadra Swamy Temple | 96-97 | 34,153-00 | 7319-00 |
| (2) Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple (Polathala Village) | 96-97 | 46,014-00 | 9860-00 |
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.