Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J.
B.Anjineyulu @ B.Anandh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Andhra Pradesh State rep by its Principal Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No.18525 of 2020
Decided on : 03-05-2023
Mandamus - Removal from Service - Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 - Rule 20(11)(c)(i), Rule 21 - The court discussed the provisions of Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and held that a fresh enquiry can be ordered by following the procedure under Rule 20. The court found no flaw in the order of removal and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Writ Petition to set aside the order of removal from service, contending that fresh/de novo enquiry is not permissible under Rule 20(11)(c)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a fresh enquiry can be ordered under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether a fresh enquiry was permissible under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a fresh enquiry can be ordered under Rule 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and found no flaw in the order of removal.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
2. The present Writ Petition is filed to set aside the order of removal of the petitioner herein from service, vide order dated 22.09.2020 in R.C.No.3/101/PR/03/COMDT-VJA/APSPF/2020/D.No.1825, on the ground that fresh/de novo enquiry is not permissible under Rule 20(11)(c)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
3. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that he (B.Anjaneyulu @ B.Anandh Kumar, H.C.1533) conspired with one M.Ravi Babu, Ex.CT-2459 (Constable of APSPF), who was retired compulsorily in the said post and D.Raja Babu, Ex.HC- 672, APSPF, to eliminate Sri M.Sankara Rao, Assistant Commandant, SPF, Tirupati. The said M.Sankara Rao has lodged a complaint with Alipiri Police Station on 13.05.2017 alleging that the petitioner herein has threatened him with dire consequences through voice recording and after getting permission from the Court, a case in Crime No.115 of 2017 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC on 15.05.2017. Later, a charge sheet was issued by the inquiring authority with the following charge, as follows:
Sri M.Sankara Rao, Asst. Commandant, lodged a complaint along with a CD containing his mobile phone conversation with the said Ex CT-2459 Sri M.Ravi Babu at Alipiri PS, Tirupathi on 13.05.2017. Accordingly, a criminal case in Cr.No.115/2017, U/s 506 IPC r/w 34 IPC dated: 15.05.2017 was registered against him at Alipir P.S. Tirupathi urban Police District wherein he was marked as Accused-1 (A1). Thus, he involved in criminal activities by hatching a plan to assassinate superior officer of SPF and attempted to spread disaffection in this disciplined armed force SPF.
By the above act, he was exhibited gross misconduct, which is un-becoming of Government servant thereby violating Rule-3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. "
4. The inquiring authority has conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report, vide proceedings dated 22.04.2019, holding that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved and he was found guilty of the charge and the enquiry report was forwarded to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority, vide proceedings dated 13.04.2020, has ordered for fresh enquiry as per the CC&A Rules and on receiving the FSL Report, directed the inquiring authority to issue a charge memo afresh and call for explanation
AI
The disciplinary authority can remit the case for further enquiry, but a de-novo enquiry is not warranted unless there is a patent irregularity or illegality in the earlier enquiry report.
The disciplinary authority cannot order a fresh enquiry without identifying material irregularities in the previous proceedings, emphasizing adherence to the procedural rules and safeguarding the rig....
Disciplinary authorities cannot initiate a de-novo inquiry after prior exoneration without legal basis, affirming the need for adherence to established procedures in disciplinary actions.
The disciplinary authority's power to order a de novo inquiry and frame additional charges must be in accordance with Rule 15(1) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) ....
Point of law: The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee issued, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of Government employee, but in the public interest and also in ....
The court ruled that a de-novo enquiry cannot be initiated based on a previously quashed charge-sheet, necessitating a fresh charge-sheet for any new proceedings.
Action to initiate a de novo enquiry on the same charges after completion of the earlier enquiry culminating with findings of exoneration of the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction and accordin....
A de novo inquiry is permissible under Rule 26(1) of the CDA Rules when substantial evidence or procedural defects existed in the prior inquiry, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice....
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
