IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of proportionality and due process, ensuring fair treatment of employees in similar circumstances.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“......to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st respondent in issuing the G.O.Rt. No. 22, Revenue (Vigilance-III) Department, dated 17.01.2022 wherein imposed a penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner discriminately in a common charge along with others as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, discriminatory and also violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same by further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with all consequential benefits including seniority, monitory etc., and pass such other orders....”

2. Heard Mr. V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-I for the 1st respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he was initially appointed as Village Revenue Assistant in the year 1995 and later promoted as Village Revenue Officer in the year 2012. While he was working as Village Revenue Officer, Gundlur-II Cluster, Kalikiri Mandal, he was placed under suspension along with others vide proceedings dated 27.06.2016 by the 3rd respondent on the ground that “for dereliction of duties in recommending for digitally signing of Government land to an extent of Ac. 15.00 cents in Sy. No. 2151, which is classified as Vagu Poramboke of B. Kothakota Village and Mandal as patta lands in the Webland.” The 3rd respondent issued charge memo, for which the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The Sub Collector, Madanapalle, who conducted common enquiry and submitted a report to the 3rd respondent on 31.07.2019 stating that the charge is held proved. The petitioner reinstated into service. Basing on the report, the 1st respondent has issued a Memo dated 26.02.2020 directing the charged officers to submit their explanation if any, for which the petitioner has submitted explanation on 13.07.2020 to the 1st respondent, which is kept pending. Therefore, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 28842 of 2021 and this Court directed the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within six weeks. On receipt of the copy of the order of this Court, the 1st respondent issued impugned order dated 17.01.2022 imposed penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to be filed.

4. Per contra, 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit denying all material allegations made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that Chief Commissioner of Land Administration has brought to the notice of the Government that 15.00 acres out of 30.00 acres of Government Land classified as Vagu Poramboke of B. Kothakota Village and Mandal, Chittoor District has been updated as Patta Land in the webland by the Village Revenue Officer and the same has been approved by the Mandal Revenue Inspector and Tahsildar. Thereby a Charge Memo dated 23.07.2016 was issued to the petitioner and others to submit explanation and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The Enquiry Officer has conducted enquiry and found that the petitioner failed to monitor the entry of the land particulars in the web land and that the charge against the charged officer/ petitioner is held proved. After careful examination of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and further explanation of the petitioner, the Government have observed that the petitioner has recommended for issue of Pattadar Pass Book to take fake DKT pattas issued in favour of three persons in respect of the subject lands. Therefore taking into consideration of the advice of APPSC, Government has issued orders vide G.O.Rt. No. 22, Dated 17.01.2022 imposing a penalty of “dismissal from service” against the petitioner in terms of Rule 9 of APCS (CC&A) Rules