Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 221
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.
Vanarasi Naga Jyothi, W/o. Vanarasi Trinatha Rao - Appellant
VS.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 10815/2023
Decided On : 11-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P S P SURESH KUMAR
For the Respondent: GP FOR SERVICES I
Departmental proceedings must commence with the service of the charge memo; failure to do so violates principles of natural justice, rendering the proceedings invalid.
Headnote:
(A) Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 - Rule 6(a) - Writ petition challenging penalty of removal from service imposed on a police constable for submitting fake medical reimbursement bills - The court found that the inquiry was conducted without serving the charge memo, violating principles of natural justice - The proceedings were set aside, directing the release of retirement benefits. (Paras 10, 17, 19)
(B) Presumption of Death - Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act - The court discussed the presumption of death after seven years of absence, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish the date of death. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the removal of Sri Trinatha Rao from service, who was accused of submitting fake medical bills. He went missing in 2012, and the petitioners sought to declare his death. The inquiry was conducted without serving the charge memo.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the inquiry was invalid due to the lack of service of the charge memo, violating natural justice principles. The proceedings were set aside, and the authorities were directed to release the retirement benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proceedings against Sri Trinatha Rao were legally sustainable given the lack of service of the charge memo.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that departmental proceedings must commence with the service of the charge memo, and failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid. The presumption of death under the Indian Evidence Act requires evidence to establish the date of death.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. point for consideration (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 2. inquiry without charge memo (Para 12) |
| 3. writ petition allowed (Para 19) |
ORDER :
The above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide D.O.No.499/2022 C.No.62/OE-PR/2012, dated 02.08.2022, whereby a penalty of removal from service was imposed against one Sri Trinatha Rao, who is the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 and 3, as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondent authorities to release the death benefits.
2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that :
(a) the 1st petitioner is wife and petitioners 2 & 3 are children of one Sri Trinatha Rao, who worked as a Police Constable in APSP 5th Battalion. He suffered from psychological disease and took treatment from 1993 to 10.04.2012. He was transferred from Vizianagaram APSP to Armed Reserved Police, Kakinada, East Godavari District 2001. He claimed medical reimbursement. During verification, the Auditing Department objected that the bills uploaded by Sri Trinatha Rao were fake and concluded that Rs.1,71,974/- was to be recovered. Accordingly, a show-cause notice vide C.No.8492/P6/2011, dated 11.11.2011 (Ex.P4) was issued to Sri Trinatha Rao by respondent No.2. Sri Trinatha Rao submitted a reply dated 16.11.2011. Respondent No.2, by exercising powers conferred under Rule 8(1) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), suspended Sri Trinatha Rao vide proceedings in DO.No.247/2012 C.No.2013/A8/2012, dated 20.03.2012 (Ex.P7). Aggrieved the said proceedings, Sri Trinatha Rao filed O.A.No.2702 of 2012 on the file of the learned Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein an interim order was granted on 11.04.2012, suspending the suspension proceedings (Ex.P7). However, Sri Trinatha Rao was not reinstated into service.
(b) The Administrative Officer, District Police Officer, East Godavari District, complained, against Sri Trinatha Rao at II Town Police Station (Law & Order), Kakinada on 23.04.2012 and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.91 of 2012. The whereabouts of Sri Trinatha Rao were not known from 18.05.2012. The brother of Sri Trinatha Rao complained to Nagaram Police Station and the same was registered as a case in Cr.No.50 of 2012 on 05.06.2012.
(c) The petitioners filed suit in O.S.No.22 of 2020 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Rajolu, to declare that Sri Trinatha Rao died on 18.05.2012 and to direct the defendants therein to enter his date of death in the Date of Births & Deaths register. As the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 passed the order impugned in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition.
3. (a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. While not disputing the appointment of Sri Trinatha Rao as a Police Constable in 5th Battalion, APSP and his transfer to Armed Reserve Police, Kakinada, East Godavari District, it was contended that the Senior Audit Officer, Office of the Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide letter No. Prl.AG(CA)/CA-I/U-/2010-11/14, dated 09.05.2011, pointed out that Sri Trinatha Rao furnished fake and false fabricated bills. The Accountant General opined that the claim was not genuine and instructed to recover the amount from the claimant in one lump sum. Accordingly, a show-cause notice vide Ex.P4 was issued. Sri Trinatha Rao, in turn, submitted an explanation vide Ex.P5. The Additional Superintendent of Police (Admn), East Godavari, Kakinada, inquired into the matter and submitted a report vide C.No.08/(Admn)/Camp-E,G/2011, dated 07.01.2012, stating that the medical bills submitted by Sri Trinatha Rao are false and recommended to register a case. The said Sri Trinatha Rao was placed under suspension vide Ex.P7. The Administrative Officer, District Police Officer, East Godavari District, complained to at II Town Police Station (Law & Order), Kakinada o
