IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A.V.SESHA SAI, V.SRINIVAS, JJ.
Ch. Satya Prasad Rao – Appellant
Versus
The Appellate Authority-cum-Registrar Admn. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.42175 of 2018
Decided on : 15-09-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 – Order of compulsory retirement and consequently order of compulsory retirement and consequently – Punishment of dismissal from service case of misappropriation of amounts – Criminal law – Service jurisprudence – In present Writ Petition, challenge is to order of dismissal of petitioner from service passed by respondent No.2- Disciplinary Authority-cum-learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, vide D.E File Order, as confirmed in appeal by respondent No.1 herein, vide Order in D(D)A – Held, In his evidence, petitioner as D.W.1 stated that during relevant period, he used to do work pertaining to criminal branch and also accounts branch and that distance between Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, and State Bank of India, Yeleswaram is 40 kms and further stated that besides attending Criminal Court work and Accounts, he used to travel to in order to get demand drafts while experiencing lot of inconvenience and he further deposed that bank authorities used to inform that the demand drafts were available with them and same resulted in delay. Having regard to terrain of subject area, said explanation cannot be brushed aside and ruled out completely – Though it is submission of learned counsel for petitioner that, vide letter, petitioner requested Disciplinary Authority for change of Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority did not consider, Court is not inclined to consider same, as petitioner never agitated in his explanation submitted to the final show cause notice – Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
A.V.Sesha Sai, J.
In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service passed by respondent No.2- Disciplinary Authority-cum-learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, vide D.E.FILE No: 53/13 :: Order dated 23.01.2017, as confirmed in the appeal by respondent No.1 herein, vide Order in D(D)A.No.09/2017,C.4 (Con.), Dated 21.05.2018.
2. The petitioner herein joined in service as a Field Assistant in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru, East Godavari District, on 03.02.1997 and subsequently, on promotion, he was posted on 14.06.2005 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Razole, East Godavari District. Subsequently, he was posted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Addateegala. As on the date of dismissal, the petitioner was working as Field Assistant in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Razole, East Godavari District.
3. In connection with a complaint made by a Placement Agency, i.e., SBEUCC Society, Kakinada, stating that the ESI, EPF, Insurance, etc., of the Outsourcing Employees were not received, the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Addateegala, submitted a report to respondent No.2 and the learned Principal District Judge issued a show cause notice dated 13.06.2013, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated for the alleged misappropriation of Rs.2,04,884/-.
4. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 13.06.2013, the petitioner herein submitted an explanation on 28.08.2013.
5. Thereafter, respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority appointed the I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, as Preliminary Enquiry Officer, who submitted a report on 30.01.2014.
6. Subsequently, respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority initiated regular departmental enquiry proceedings, by issuing a Charge Memo dated 31.01.2014, framing the following Articles of Charges against the petitioner and one Sri G.S.Sarma, Superintendent:
Secondly, that you, Sri G.S.Sarma, formerly Superintendent of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Addateegala failed to check the branch and registers before June, 2012 and failed to place the matter before the Presiding Officer, immediately, or within a reasonable period, which act of yours, if proved or established would amount to, misconduct, negligence and dereliction in discharging your duties and liable for punishment under A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1991."
7. In response to the said Charge Memo dated 31.01.2014, the petitioner herein submitted his explanation on 29.05.2014. Thereafter, respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority appointed the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, as the Enquiry Officer and after holding enquiry, he submitted a report dated 20.03.2015, holding the charges as proved. After receipt of the said report on 02.05.2015, the petitioner submitted his written representation dated 28.05.2015. Then respondent No.2-Disciplinary Authority, vide the order impugned dated 23.01.2017, dismissed the petitioner from service, while inflicting the punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect on the co-delinquent Sri G.S.Sarma, Superintendent. As against the said order of punishment, the petitioner herein filed appeal dated 06.03.2017 before respondent No.1 and respondent No.1, vide order dated 21.05.2018, dismissed the said appeal.
8. Challenging the validity and the legal su
AP Public prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad v/s P.Hanumantha Rao.
K.Abdul Gafoor v. High Court of A.P., rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad and others
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
Distinct allegations against employee charged in the same transaction would be justified being based on a valid classification and no perversity or arbitrariness can be alleged in the process.
Disciplinary proceedings vitiate if an inquiry is conducted without serving proper notice to the delinquent, denying the right to cross-examine witnesses and failing to furnish a copy of the inquiry ....
Point of Law : It would not be safe to rely on the examination-in-chief recorded which was not subjected to cross examination before the summon was made.
Removal from service upheld for postal employee's misappropriation and breach of trust; Tribunal limits interference in disciplinary proceedings unless procedural flaws evident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of dues from a retired employee and the continuation of a departmental enquiry after retirement must be in accordance with the ap....
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.