Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 120
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
Bandreddy Raja Gopal Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
High Court Of Judicature Registrarvigilance Hyd and Others - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 3995/2017
Decided On : 25-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V R REDDY KOVVURI
For the Respondent: P S P SURESH KUMAR, GP FOR LAW & LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS (AP)
The dismissal of a government employee based on a disciplinary enquiry was found unjustified due to failure to consider the enquiry report and violation of natural justice principles.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 - Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1991 - Writ petition challenging termination from service based on disciplinary proceedings - The petitioner was dismissed after a departmental enquiry where one charge was found proved - The court found that the disciplinary authority did not properly consider the enquiry report and the dismissal was unjustified. (Paras 2, 4, 20, 21)
(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to contest the findings of the enquiry officer. (Paras 2, 20)
(C) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that mere acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically confer a right to reinstatement unless the charges are identical and the evidence is the same. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Field Assistant in District Courts, was dismissed based on a disciplinary enquiry that found him guilty of misconduct related to a job promise and financial transactions. The petitioner was previously acquitted in a criminal case related to the same allegations.
Findings of Court:
The court found the dismissal to be illegal and set aside the disciplinary proceedings, ordering reinstatement with all benefits.
Issues: The main issues were whether the dismissal was justified and the effect of the acquittal in the criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary authority failed to consider the enquiry report properly and that the dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
Result: Writ Petition allowed, and the impugned proceedings set aside.
ORDER :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India for the following relief:
“…..to call for the entire records in Inquiry No 2 of 2014 on the file of District Judge Kadapa-cum-Disciplinary Authority and to grant a Writ or order more fully in the nature of the Writ of Certiorari declaring the acts of the 2nd Respondents in issuing proceeding dated 30-06-2015 in Enquiry No 2 of 2014 as illegal unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Specific Provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1991….”
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is working as Field Asst. (Amin) in District Courts at Kadapa and on the basis of complaint dated 25-09- 2013 by one Sri V.Rama Chandra Reddy, a case in Cr.No.186/2013 under section 420 and 506 of Indian Penal Code was registered by Kadapa Taluk Police station against the petitioner and others and the petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody on 03.10.2013. Basing on the same, the 2nd respondent directed the enquiry officer to submit preliminary report. After submission of preliminary enquiry, the 2nd respondent ordered regular enquiry vide order dated 23.09.2014 by appointing Sri T. Raghu Kumar, Senior civil Judge, Kadapa as Enquiry officer, and the enquiry officer framed articles of charges. During the course of enquiry PWs.1 to 5 were examined. Later, the enquiry officer has submitted a detailed report in Enquiry No.2 of 2014 dated 09.04.2015 to the 2nd respondent holding that Charges No.1 and Charge No.3 as not proved while holding Charge No.2 as proved. Later, the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 21.04.2015 to the petitioner disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer holding the petitioner/charged employee is guilty of the Charges Framed and directed the petitioner "to show cause as to why the order of disciplinary authority setting aside findings of inquiry authority should not be confirmed granting 10 days time for submitting written reply.” Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. But without considering the same, the 2nd respondent vide proceeding dated 30.06.2015 terminated the petitioner from service. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, stated that as per Rule 21(1)(2) of C.C.A. Rules, 1991, the then Disciplinary Authority-cum-District Judge, Kadapa did not accept the enquiry report and held that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved. Elaborate tentative proceedings for setting aside the report of the Enquiry Officer and a show cause notice dated 21- 04-2015 was issued to the petitioner along with copies of the tentative findings and the enquiry report on 23-04-2015. It is stated that the Provision U/R.21(2) of C.C.A, Rules, 1991, clearly states that where the disciplinary authority is not the enquiring authority, a copy of the report of the enquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Enquiring Authority or any Article of Charge shall be supplied to the Government Servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires his written representation of submission to the disciplinary authority within 15 days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government Servant.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per U/R.21(3) of C.C.A. Rules, 1991, the disciplinary authority shall consider the representation if any, submitted by the Government Servant and record its findings before proceedings further in the matter as specified in the sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 21. It is stated that Sub-Rule (5) U/R.21 specifies that if the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the Article
