Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NYAPATHY VIJAY
Lankey Dhono Raju, S/ O. Lale Guru Murlhy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary To Government, Environment, Forest – Respondent
ORDER :
Nyapathy Vijay, J.
1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings issued by Respondent No.2 vide RC.No.16514/2016/A&DC-3(1) dated 03.05.2024 against the Petitioner imposing major penalty of compulsory retirement with two-thirds of invalid pension and gratuity and further treating the suspension period ‘not on duty’, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts in brief are as follows;
The Petitioner while working as Forest Range Officer, Rampachodavaram, was issued a Charge-Memorandum under Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short “the A.P.C.S. Rules, 1991”) on 13.02.2017, whereunder five (5) Articles of Charges were framed against the Petitioner. The Article of Charge-I is with regard to misconduct and violation of the agreement conditions and allowing the contractors to transport the Eucalyptus pulpwood without making payment of full sale amount to an extent of Rs.68,52,881/- and also by adjusting 1/4th deposits to an extent of Rs.52,72,567/- without previous permission from the Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru.
3. The further part of the Article of Charge-I was that the Petitioner had failed to ensure th
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural fairness as outlined in Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, and unjustified delays render penalties void.
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to cross-examine witnesses; failure to do so invalidates penalties imposed.
The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, confirming adherence to natural justice principles and justifying the proceedings against the petitioner.
The issuance of a Charge Memo by an unauthorized authority after undue delay is unsustainable, as negligible errors do not constitute misconduct.
The Disciplinary Authority must provide a tentative opinion and an opportunity for hearing before disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer's findings, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Disciplinary action requires compliance with procedural rules; failure to conduct an enquiry renders the imposition of penalties invalid.
The court emphasized that a disciplinary order must provide clear reasoning; failing this, the order is unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
