ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring:

(i) the action of the respondents in passing orders in GO.Rt.No.67, Irrigation and CAD (Vigilance) Department, dated 03.01.2018, communicated through the orders of the third respondent in Endorsement No. RC.ENC/SII(1)/H1/16396/2014 dated 11.01.2018 imposing a minor penalty of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional being in violation of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

(ii) Consequently set aside the orders passed by the 1strespondent vide GO.Rt.No.67, Irrigation & CAD (Vigilance) Department, dated 03.01.2018 communicated through the orders of the 3rd respondent in Endorsement No. RC.ENC/SII(1)/H1/16396/2014 dated 11.01.2018 imposing a minor penalty of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect;

(iii) Further direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings pursuant to the charges framed GO.Rt.No.675, I &CAD (Ser.VII) Department, dated 09.06.2010 as has been done in the case of Shri K R Chander Rao, vide orders passed in GO.Rt.No.17, Irrigation & CAD (Vigilance)Department dated 03.01.2018.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) Petitioner has been appointed as Assistant Executive engineer vide proceedings number. RC/ENC/D1/35232/97-212 dated 18.05.2004 and allotted to irrigation and CID department and was first posted to GVC-2, SRSP-CADA, Jagityal on 26.05.2004 and charges were framed against the petitioner and 80 other officials in the Irrigation Department alleging that the payments have been made to private contractors for works which were not executed at all or by recording excess measurements then the works actually executed.

b) Inspection team was constituted by the government and the team carried out inspections of 5810 works for which administrative/technical sanctions were recorded involving an amount of Rs. 281.45 crores and thereafter the matter was interested to GA(V&E) department for an “in-depth enquiry” and the vigilance department is said to have Inspected a total of 81 works. Based on the report of GA (V and E) Department disciplinary action against the 80 officers was initiated and the petitioner was working only as an AEE then.

c) Charges were framed against the petitioner vide GO.Rt.No.675 of Irrigation & CAD (ser.VII (V&E) A1) dated 09.06.2010 against the alleged misconduct set out in the Statement of Articles of charges and the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence dated 25.01.2018 denying any and all allegation’s of misconduct against the petitioner.

d) A common enquiry was conducted to inquire against all the eight officers charge sheeted and orders were issued, appointing the Inquiry Authority vide GO.Rt.No401 dated 31.03.2012 to enquire into the charges framed against the 80 officers listed and the Petitioner fell at serial number 33 in the said list.

e) After a prolonged enquiry and receiving written arguments from several defending officers the enquiry officer, vide report dated 16.11.2013, held that all the charges against the officer were proved and the charge framed against the petitioner is that he has recorded work in excess of what has been executed. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he had recorded an item in the materials book as H Girder, and the enquiry officer had taken stand that there is no H Girder.

f) H Girder was not available in the market during the period and C-sections were utilised as they were nearest components to H Girders since C-sections were much stronger than H Girder and were expensive. Further there were circular instructions that whenever particular components were not available the components which are closest as possible in specifications may be utilized and hence there was no fault of the petitioner.

g) Moreover the contractor ha