SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 278

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : RAVI KONDAVEETI

Headnote:

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.1: That the receipts and charges from 28.01.1998 to 26.02.1998 are not tallied and discrepancy of excess debit of Rs.1220- 30 as against the actual receipts. The excess amount debited (Rs.1220-30) needs recovery from the Executive Officer and credited to temple account immediately.

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.5: That he miserably failed to produce the stock of new ticket books printed along with money valued from register maintained in Assistant Commissioner’s officer, Cuddapah for affixing them official seal before use in Mahasivarathri festival 1998 at Polathala Village. He suppressed the facts put the office in darkness; which gives room from suspicious of his bonafide administration dealing with financial matter.

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

    Charge No.9: That he colluded with self styled poojari of Sri Akka Devathalu which is sub-Diety to Sri Malleswara Swamy Temple and allowed for sale of their own tickets printed opening separate counter during Mahasivarathri festival 1998 in the disguise of conditional orders obtained in W.P.No.3930 of 1998 on the file of High Court, Hyderabad by Ayyavaru when there is no such usage and custom prevailing never before in the temple. The loss

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top