Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. SESHA SAI, RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, JJ.
J. Venkatamani - Petitioner
Versus
Prl. Secy., Vigilanceiv Hyd., Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 24743 of 2016
Decided On : 30-04-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 311(2) and 32 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 57 - A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 - Demanded amount - Settlement and Lands Records Department - Official position demanded and accepted bribe - Misconduct - Petitioner herein was a Surveyor in Survey, Settlement and Lands Records Department. On the basis of a complaint made by one, saying that the petitioner demanded amount from him for doing official favour by way of sending survey report to the Mandal Revenue Officer, and consequent upon the trap laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials, the State Government referred the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings had taken up the same - complainant at your office room to do the official favour i.e., sending up the survey report to the M.R.O., Narayanavanam in respect of extent and boundaries of the agricultural land for the purpose of getting registered the land of 2.15 acres, which was under the enjoyment of the complainant since long time and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989 – Held, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings thoroughly failed in appreciating the evidence available on record from proper perspective and came to the conclusions without there being any foundation and basis. While dealing with the career and future of an individual, the Inquiring and Disciplinary Authorities are required to conduct the proceedings with care, caution and circumspection and cannot jump into conclusions on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. As mentioned above, though Ex.P10 manifestly shows that the Charged Officer was on camp on 01.10.2002, the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings presumed that the Charged Officer might have been there in the office and P.W.1 might have met him. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings completely brushed aside the evidence of P.W.4, a crucial witness and who was a Panchayat Secretary at the relevant point of time and who, in clear and vivid terms, deposed about the quarrel between the Charged Officer and the complainant-P.W.1, i.e., on the date of survey, i.e., one day prior to the alleged trap. It is a matter of normal prudence that had there been really an agreement between the complainant-P.W.1 and the Charged Officer, there would not have been such a quarrel on the date of survey and there would not have been such a situation where the Charged Officer informed the complainant that he would lodge a police complaint. In view of these incurable infirmities in the evidence adduced by the Department during the course of enquiry, which cannot be given any credence, the Tribunal grossly erred in holding against the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings recorded supra and the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions and contentions, the judgments cited by the learned Government Pleader would not render any assistance to the case of the respondents herein. The above narration and the findings recorded supra drive this Court towards an irresistible conclusion that the impugned action is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law- Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
A.V. Sesha Sai, J.
This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 04.12.2015 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.4890 of 2009. By way of the said order, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, filed by the petitioner herein under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. Briefly stated the facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows :
The petitioner herein was a Surveyor in Survey, Settlement and Lands Records Department. On the basis of a complaint made by one Sri Muniswami, saying that the petitioner demanded amount from him for doing official favour by way of sending survey report to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Narayanavanam Mandal and consequent upon the trap laid by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials, the State Government referred the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings had taken up the same, vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.135 of 2003 and framed the following charge against the petitioner:-
3. During the course of enquiry before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, as many as 6 witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 6, were examined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked on behalf of the Department and on behalf of the defence side, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings submitted a report dated 26.04.2006, holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1989, and held that the prosecution established the charge against the petitioner in all probabilities and further held that the petitioner is liable for punishment under Rule 9(ix) of the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
4. After receipt of the said report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, the State Government, while communicating the said report, issued a show cause notice, vide Memo No.68730/Vig.IV(2)/2002-11, Rev.(Vig.IV) Dept., dated 01.11.2006, provisionally deciding to impose a suitable penalty against the petitioner. Subsequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh passed an order, vide G.O.Ms.No.974, Revenue (Vigilance IV) Department, dated 11.07.2007, dismissing the petitioner herein from service under Rule 9(x) of the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
5. Assailing the validity of the said order of punishment, the petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.4890 of 2009. The Tribunal, by way of an order dated 04.12.2015, dismissed the said Original Application on the ground that the charge against the applicant stood proved before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. In the above background, questioning the validity of the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.4890 of 2009, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.
An authority higher than the appointing authority can impose discipline, and misconduct proved through witness testimony withstands judicial review unless procedural irregularities are evident.
: Service – Punishment - once the charges levelled against the delinquent employee are proved then it is for the appointing authority to decide as to what punishment should be imposed on the delinque....
In departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the court will not interfere with the disciplinary authority's findings unless there is a clear ....
In disciplinary proceedings, findings must be supported by substantial evidence, and misconduct can be established by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
