Disciplinary proceedings failing to adhere to procedural norms result in violations of natural justice, and punishments must be proportionate to proven charges, as established under public service regulations.

-

ORDER :

Kiranmayee Mandava, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri N. Sai Phanindra Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

2. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide CCT’s Ref.No.VI/440/2015-II dated 24.03.2022, imposing a punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect.

3. It is contended that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO) in the year 2009, the petitioner was posted as ACTO in Circle-II of Ananthapuramu, form 2009 to May, 2013. Thereafter, she was transferred to Office of the Joint Commissioner, Ananthapuramu. The 2nd respondent issued show cause notice dated 16.11.2015, seeking explanation of the petitioner on the alleged ground that the petitioner did not remit the sum of Rs.27,299/-, to the Government treasury, after collecting the same from the tax payers. The petitioner contends that the alleged misconduct was of one Sri B.Vinayaka, Junior Assistant, who was responsible for the non remittance of the said amount. It is further contended that the petitioner was diligent while handing over the sums to her subordinates. The challans submitted by them in proof of remittance of the sums were duly kept in the file, the same were subsequently found to be counterfeit challans. It is further contended that the Junior Assistant to whom the money was handed over was quite senior person in the department having rendered the services for substantial period of ten years.

4. It is further contended that the said Sri B.Vinayaka, had in fact admitted his guilt and he had remitted the sums that have been misappropriated by him. However, without dropping the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the punishment was imposed.

5. Following are the charges framed:-

“Article of charge-I:-

That the said Smt.K.Jaya Madhavi Latha, the then ACTO, Kalyandurg and present ACTO, O/o DC(CT), Ananthapuramu has committed certain irregularities while working as ACTO, Kalyandurg, Ananthapuram division.

The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Ananthapuram conducted enquiry on mismatching of challans entered in VATIS with reference to treasury data and reported non-remittance of Cash collections of tax made by the officers in the offices of Anantapuram-I & II circle to an extent of Rs.79,58,204/-.

Article of charge-II:-

Smt.K.Jaya Madhavi Latha, the then ACTO, Kalyandurg and present ACTO, O/0 DC(CT), Anathapuramu division while functioning in the aforesaid office found have collected cash and issued receipts for cash collections of tax, to an extent of Rs.27,299/- but failed to remit into the Government Treasury through proper challans as per rules. Thus she is responsible for misappropriation of Government money to an extent of Rs.27,299/-.”

6. It is contended that the two charges were framed against the petitioner, however, only one charge was proved. It is contended that similar charges were framed against several other officers in the cadre of DCTO, ACTO & CTO, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against each of the Officers. The said Enquiry Officer without following the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’), has submitted his report on 06.12.2017, stating that the charge No.1 as proved and charge No.2 as not proved. The said enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 11.04.2017. The petitioner has submitted her explanation on 26.05.2017. The disciplinary proceedings initiated agai