ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

“…to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned Proceedings vide Progs No A1/UVR/2013 dt 08 03 2022 imposing punishment of recovery of Rs 8 01 999 00 in addition to imposing punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect as illegal arbitrary discriminatory and selective punishment and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders…….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner worked as Mandal Engineering Officer, Mandal Parishad, Seethanagaram, on deputation basis in Vizianagaram district, executed Food for Work Programme in the year 1998 to 2000, which were relating to construction of Roads and Buildings and they were completed in the year 2000 itself. Basing on a complaint, against the works executed by the eptitoenr and his superiors the then Executive Engineer, Panchyat Raj, Vigilance and Quality Control, Visakhapatnam, made enquiry and submitted a report on 02.03.2008 to the Chief Engineer, Vigilance and Quality Control by forming two teams to certify the work already finished in the year 2. As per the said report, it was clearly mentioned that out of 35 works, 13 works are earthen formation and it is not possible to verify them after lapse of nearly 5 years. The exact location of the work, where the work was executed, was not mentioned in the M.Books. Earth works cannot be verified after such length of time as it was executed 5 years back. Minimum percentage of verification was not done by the Deputy Executive Engineer and has not appended his initial for the same work. Further, the Deputy Executive Engineer failed to inform higher authorities immediately after noticing tampering by adding of items by Section Officer. The ENC submitted a report to the Government on 28.5.2012 enhancing the amount to be recovered, without any valid reasons and without any proper inspection, informed that tampering was done by U.Yesuratnam i.e., the petitioner alone, MEO, Balajipeta in M.Books. The misappropriation amount comes to Rs.5,06,301/-, but whereas the amount mentioned by the Quality Control Department comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. As per the report dated 28.05.2012 submitted by the ENC to the Government just only a deskwork and further, the three officials were responsible for the loss to the Government and it is further submitted that the Vigilance and Quality Control Department has reported that inspection teams did not identify the balance of works during their inspection conducted 3 to 4 years back and at this stage i.e., after 8 years of execution of those works, it is highly difficult to identify and inspect the work now.

It is further stated that the Enquiry Officer submitted a report. In the enquiry, the petitioner submitted his defence to the effect that initial report of Quality Controller finds that only Rs.1,50,000/- was misappropriated, but in the report of the ENC, the amount encroached to Rs.5,06,301/-. The enquiry Officer failed to take into consideration of the defence submitted by the petitioner and failed to give any reasons to the effect that the loss caused to the Government is Rs.5,06,301/- and that there is no evidence produced by the Department before the Enquiry Officer. So, findings are bad in law.

It is further stated that the incident pertains to 2008 and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is in 2022. So, there is lot of delay in departmental proceedings. The petitioner is having only 2 years of service and his son is studying Medicine, if the punishment is imposed, he has to undergo hardship before this retirement for no fault of him in delay in departmental enquiry, in spite of the report submitted by the Quality Control and vigilance Department to recover Rs.1,50,000/- from all the three persons who are responsible at that time. However, for t