Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
C. Govinda Rajulu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 36081 of 2017
Decided on : 04-08-2023
Misconduct - Departmental Enquiry - A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991 - The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) in O.A.No.5535 of 2014, dated 15.09.2017, by which, the petitioner’s OA was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Junior Assistant, was suspended on the allegation of misbehavior with a colleague. The Enquiry Officer found the charge proved and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Enquiry Officer's report was not without jurisdiction and the order of removal from service against the petitioner could not be faulted. The court also held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer, as accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, was supported by evidence on record of enquiry.
Issues: The issues considered by the court included the jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the finding, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Enquiry Officer's report was not without jurisdiction and the order of removal from service against the petitioner could not be faulted. The court also held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer, as accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, was supported by evidence on record of enquiry. The court further held that the punishment of removal as imposed was not disproportionate to the proved charges and did not require interference.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and held that the punishment of removal as imposed was not disproportionate to the proved charges and did not require interference.
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel, representing Sri Vijaya Kumar Sata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. V. S. Kishore Kumar, learned Government Pleader, Services-I, appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short “APAT”) in O.A.No.5535 of 2014, dated 15.09.2017, by which, the petitioner’s OA was dismissed.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant in 2nd Battalion, APSP, Kurnool on 17.08.1994. He was placed under suspension vide Rc.No.A6/PR-17/2013 (D.O.No.267/2013), dated 22.05.2013, on the allegation of misbehavior with another lady junior assistant, however, he was reinstated into service and charge memo dated 03.06.2013 was issued.
4. The articles of charges are as follows:
“Article-I: That Sri C. Govinda Rajulu, Junior Assistant (u/s), 2nd Battalion, APSP, APSP, Kurnool has exhibited most reprehensible misconduct in misbehaving with Smt. G. Jhancy Lakshmi, Junior Assistant on 10.05.2013 afternoon during the lunch hours, while Smt. G. Jhansi lakshmi, Junior Assistant in the office, he obstructed her by stretching his leg across when she was going for lunch and demanded to fulfill his favours. When, she revolted and return to her seat, he followed her, seated by the side of her and stated harassing mentally by caught hold her hand with mala fide intension, behaved in a most indecent manner, tried to outrage her modesty, threatened her with dire consequences not to talk with other and thereby created nuisance in the office which is highly reprehensible” “Article-II: He was appointed as Junior Assistant on 17.08.1994 and completed more than 18 years of service. During his 18 years of service, he was suspended for 02 times for various misconducts, awarded 06 punishments viz., RTSP-01, PPIs-02 and Censure-03 and utterly failed to change his attitude.”
5. The petitioner submitted explanation denying the charges.
6. On 25.10.2013 the Enquiry Officer was appointed, the enquiry was conducted with participation of the petitioner under Rule 20 of the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991 (in short “the Rules 1991”). The Enquiry Officer-Assistant Commandant, 2nd Battalion, APSP Kurnool submitted a detailed report on the departmental enquiry dated 11.11.2013. The Enquiry Officer found that the charge is “proved”. The Disciplinary Authority being in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, served the copy of the Enquiry Officers Report to the petitioner vide memo dated 13.11.2013, giving opportunity to submit representation to the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted reply dated 04.12.2013. The Disciplinary Authority-the Commandant, 2nd Battalion, APSP, Kurnool, after considering the reply, passed the order of punishment dated 26.12.2013, awarding the punishment of removal from service with immediate effect, though finding it a fit case for dismissal from service, but taking a lenient view, as recorded in the order of removal itself. The petitioner’s suspension period was treated as not on duty. The petitioner’s appeal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, APSP Battalions, Kurnool Range, Kurnool on 25.08.2014.
7. Challenging the order of removal and the appellate order, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.5535 of 2014 (C. Govinda Rajulu v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary & ors) which has been dismissed by the APAT by judgment dated 15.09.2017.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no evidence to support the finding on the charge proved. He placed reliance in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 to contend that in the departmental enquiry conclusion should be based on evidence and not on conjectures and surmises.
9. He further submitted that in view of Rule 3-D of th
The judgment emphasizes the importance of specific and proven charges, adherence to procedural rules, and consideration of the petitioner's explanation in disciplinary proceedings.
It is also settled law that if the rule requires something to be done in a particular manner it should be done either in the same manner or not at all.
Fair and proper procedure must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings, including evidence examination and the right to cross-examine witnesses, to ensure justice.
The judgment establishes the application of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in addressing workplace sexual harassment and emphasizes the ....
Point of law: High Court is not a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is hel....
statement recorded in the preliminary enquiry, which are behind the back of the Applicant, and for which he had no opportunity to cross-examine them, cannot be used in regular inquiry, as the delinqu....
The main legal point established is that the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee must be a higher level woman officer in accordance with Section 4(2)(a) of the Sexual Harassment of....
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
