IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary authorities must conduct independent inquiries and cannot rely solely on external recommendations; failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid.

ORDER :

(T. Madhavi Devi, J.) :

In this Writ Petition (TR), the petitioner is seeking a direction to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent bearing No.2105/E3/2005/3114 dt.09.08.2007 and Memo No.2105/3/ 2005/3507 dt.02.08.2008 and to set aside the same by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition (TR) are that the petitioner was working as an Assistant (F&A) in O&M Division 2. She was deputed to work in e-Seva Centre at Malakpet as Operator during the period from September, 2001 till July 2002, as Manager at Vanasthalipuram e-Seva from August, 2002 to February, 2003 and again as Manager at Malakpet e-Seva from 10.02.2003. She was served with a charge sheet dt.09.12.2004 by the 4th respondent framing the following charge:

“They have sold non judicial stamp paper of higher denomination of Rs.100/- above on 3-11-2004 and 16-11-2004, even after the ban imposed by the Govt. and instructions given by the Head Office for which the Managers of the two centres are held responsible.”

In response to the said charge sheet, the petitioner submitter her explanation on 09.12.2004 denying the charge and stating that after the ban imposed by the Government and the instructions given by the Head Office, she had not sold any stamp papers and that she had returned the stamp papers to the Assistant Section Officer Mr. P.Ashok Kumar who is her officer and In-charge of the stamps in e-Seva Centre, Malakpet, Hyderabad and had taken acknowledgement also on 30.10.2003. She further stated that Sri P.Ashok Kumar seems to have sold out certain stamp papers without the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner being subordinate, had made entries in the system and subsequently when the petitioner has made enquiries with Sri P.Ashok Kumar about the selling of stamp papers, he did not give any particulars as to whom he had sold the stamps and therefore, the charge against her is baseless and requested to drop the charge. It is submitted that without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner in proper manner, the 4th respondent proposed for issuance of punishment of censure and has sent a letter dt.18.03.2005 to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has issued the proceedings No.2105/E3/2005 dt.19.09.2005 imposing punishment of censure under Rule 9(i) of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Thereafter, the petitioner has been repatriated to her parent department on 11.05.2005.

3. It is submitted that aggrieved by the punishment of censure, the petitioner filed a representation to the 2nd respondent requesting for revocation of the said punishment as the charge itself is baseless, but instead of dropping the said order of punishment of censure, the 2nd respondent has issued proceedings No.9595/E3/2004 dt.05.01.2006 reopening the case solely based on the alleged advice given by the Vigilance Commissioner and decided to re-enquire into the matter under Rule 40 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and appointed an enquiry officer. It is submitted that the said proceedings are illegal and void being without jurisdiction because the 2nd respondent is not the revisional authority to invoke Rule 40 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and no regular enquiry as contemplated under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 has been conducted and no witnesses including the petitioner were examined and on the basis of such laconic enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on 08.02.2007 with a conclusion that charges cannot be dropped without any cogent reasons and recommended for punishment of cutting one increment without cumulative effect. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent, thereafter, has issued a memo dt.08.06.2007 proposing i