IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses; failure to do so invalidates penalties imposed.

ORDER :

(Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.)

1. Since the matters involved are regarding the same Petitioner on similar issues, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

Brief Pleadings of the W.Ps.

2. Before venturing into the determination, it is essential to draw the contours of necessary facts that are emanating from the W.Ps.

A. W.P.No.14280 of 2019

3. The brief facts as stated in the Writ Petition, are that;

a) Petitioner was initially appointed as a Forest Section Officer by way of direct recruitment on 05.12.2005. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Range Officer in June, 2009 and as such, posted to Vijayawada territorial section.

b) On 09.12.2013, the Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry/ Respondent No.3, based on the report of the Divisional Forest Officer, (D.F.O.) Vigilance III, Hyderabad, dated 20.11.2012, issued Articles of Charge under Rule-20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1991,[Hereinafter referred to as A.P.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 1991] alleging that the Petitioner failed to detect unauthorized saw mills, private timber depots and saw mill-cumdepots in Vijayawada Range until the same were detected by the D.F.O. Vigilance-III, Hyderabad.

c) Petitioner submitted his reply dated 13.02.2013, denying the charges stating that in August, 2011, he submitted report to the Forest Range Officer (F.R.O.) about running of unauthorized saw mills in Vijayawada, duly furnishing the electricity service numbers and made a request to disconnect the electricity connections to the said saw mills and that in October, 2011, he also addressed a report to the F.R.O. to take necessary action against the said saw mills. It was also stated that the then F.R.O. Vijayawada submitted a report to the D.F.O. Krishna Division and as such there has been no negligence on his part in not detecting the unauthorized saw-mills, depots or in reporting the matter to the higher officers.

d) Respondent No.3 appointed the D.F.O. Vijayawada as the enquiry officer for conducting enquiry and the F.R.O., Mylavaram was appointed as Presenting Officer in January, 2014.

e) On 10.10.2014, Petitioner attended the enquiry, and his statement was recorded in the presence of the Presenting Officer. No witnesses including the DFO, Vigilance-III, Hyderabad, were examined. No enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991.

f) The enquiry officer submitted report stating that the charges were proved, based on the report of Vigilance & Enforcement, which is preliminary in nature by not examining the owners of the timber depots/saw mills. In the absence of any material either oral or documentary, major punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed.

g) Petitioner requested the Respondent No.3, vide letter 23.11.2017 to supply the authenticated charge memo, signed penalty orders, appointment order of presenting officer and his brief. Till date, no such copies were supplied.

h) As per list of seniority prepared by the circle on 01.01.2017, Petitioner stood at S.No.10 in the category of Deputy Range Officer. One Sri B.V. D.Prasad, who stood at S.No.11 was promoted in 2017. In 2018 four juniors, and in August, 2019, four more junior were promoted, which is during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Being aggrieved thereby, this W.P. has been filed seeking a Mandamus for;

“…declaring the orders passed by the 1st respondent in Rc.No.213/2013-M8, dated 7.6.2017 imposing the penalty of stoppage of two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect without furnishing the copies of the documents requested under letter dated 2.1.2018 and effecting promotions to the juniors in the guise of pendency of disciplinary proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the punishment is illegal and the petitioner is entitled for all benefits like promotions, sen