The imposition of punishment without conducting a proper enquiry and violating principles of natural justice renders the order invalid.

ORDER :

K MANMADHA RAO, J.

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

“…..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Rt.No.477, MA and UD (Vig.III-1) department, dated 31-07-2019 of the 1^st respondent and consequential orders in Roc.No.7999/08/C1, dt.16-10-2019 of the 3^rd respondent in imposing a punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect without conducting enquiry and encroaching in to the powers the 2^nd respondent as illegal, unjust and arbitrary and in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of APCCA Rules and totally disproportionate to the alleged charge….”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Health Assistant at Tirupathi on 30.12.1985 and worked in different municipalities. Later the petitioner was promoted as Sanitary Inspector on 11.10.1991 and further promoted as Sanitary Supervisor by the 2^nd respondent on 22.07.2015. The post of Health Assistant/Sanitary Inspector/Sanitary Supervisor are governed by AP Municipal Health (Municipalities) Sub-ordinate service rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.84, MA & UD (G.1) Department, dated 14.02.2012. The post of Sanitary Inspector comes under Category-1 at S.No.2 and the post of Sanitary Supervisor s comes under Category-1 at S.No.1 and for both posts, the 2^nd respondent is the appointing authority and as per CCA rules, the appointing authority will be the disciplinary authority. As per Rules, the disciplinary authority shall issue charge Memo against any accused officer inviting his explanation if any and the 2^nd respondent has to examine the explanation and if he satisfies the explanation, he shall drop the charges or else he should appoint a enquiry officer to conduct enquiry as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of APCCA Rules. In the present case, the petitioner working in 3^rd respondent corporation. The 2^nd respondent appointed the 4^th respondent as an enquiry officer in Roc.No.7999/08/C1, dated 06.10.2008 to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. Later, the enquiry officer has issued a charge memo to the petitioner vide Roc.No.7999/2008/C1, dated 30.01.2010 framing charges as the petitioner failed to submit annual property returns from the date of his joining into service i.e., 30.12.1985 to till 27.06.2007 to the competent authority and violated Rule 9(7) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the petitioner failed to obtain previous sanction or intimation to the competent authority while purchasing the immovable properties in his name and in the name of his mother and failed to obtain previous sanction or intimation to the competent authority and violated Rule 9(1) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner has submitted explanation on 06.02.2010 denying the charges made against him. The enquiry officer without conducting enquiry, submitted report on 03.10.2012 holding that the charges are held proved against the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent being disciplinary authority failed to issue show cause notice along with alleged enquiry report dated 03.10.2012 asking explanation of the petitioner on the report of the 4^th respondent. Further, the 2^nd respondent has abdicated his power to 1^st respondent, who is appellate authority and the 1^st respondent has encroached into the jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent and issued punishment vide G.O.Rt.No.477, MA & UD (Vig.III-1) Department, dated 31.07.2019 imposing a punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. Further, the 3^rd respondent has issued orders vide Roc.No.7999/08/C1, dated 16.10.2019 implementing the punishment orders of the 1^st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The 3^rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner submitted explanation to the 4^th respon