IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.
C. Ramesh - Appellant
Versus
The Government of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (TR) No. 3465 of 2017
Decided On : 21-03-2024
(A) A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3(1) & (2) - Disciplinary proceedings - The petitioner challenged the punishment of withholding increments imposed after the Government disagreed with the enquiry officer's findings. The court held that the disciplinary authority must act independently and not under the direction of the Government or Vigilance Commission. (Paras 12, 14, 16)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that the disciplinary authority must exercise its discretion based on the facts of each case without external influence. (Paras 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of misconduct involving illegal gratification but was initially exonerated by the enquiry officer. The Government later imposed punishment contrary to the enquiry findings.
Findings of Court:
The court found the disciplinary authority's actions improper and unsustainable as they failed to act independently.
Issues: The main issue was whether the disciplinary authority could impose punishment after accepting the enquiry officer's findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary authority must not act under external pressure and must independently assess the enquiry findings.
Result: Writ Petition allowed, impugned orders set aside.
ORDER :
(Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.)
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayer:
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:
(i) The applicant was originally appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in the year 1985 and promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector and Regional Transport Officer. While the applicant was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector at Bahadurpura, south Zone, Hyderabad, the ACB authorities conducted surprise check at that office on 24.11.2013 under the impression that certain irregularities were being committed; that during the inspection, Smt. M.Satyaveni, Superintendent, Smt.K.Kalavathi, Junior Assistant and a private person Sri G.Sathish were found present in the Help Desk counter with unaccounted cash of Rs.630/-, Rs.450/- and Rs.1390/-, respectively; that the private person confessed during the surprise check that he was collecting illegal amounts on behalf of the petitioner and Sri A.Lakshminarayana Reddy, Transport Constable.
(ii) Accordingly, charge memo was issued against the petitioner on 15.06.2004 as under:
Thus, Sri Chowla Ramesh, by his above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government servant thereby contravened Rule 3(1) & (2) of the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
(iii) Immediately after the alleged incident, petitioner was suspended from service in November, 2004. In response to the said charge memo, petitioner submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by petitioner, the respondents appointed the Joint Transport Commissioner as enquiry officer on 10.03.2005. After conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted detailed enquiry report on 25.03.2006 holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner is not proved.
(iv) After careful examination of the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent being the disciplinary authority accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and sent a proposal to the Government for advise of the vigilance commissioner in vigilance matters vide letter dated 04.12.2006.
(v) The Government vide Memo No.16372/Vig.III(2)/2003-5, dated 13.08.2007, while disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, requested the Transport Commissioner to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer and communicate the disagreement factors to the petitioner. Accordingly, copy of the enquiry report along with disagreement factors were communicated to the petitioner to submit his further representation vide Memo No.14530/V3/2003-1, dated 23.08.2007 of the Transport Commissioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 21.01.2008, even though the respondents have not furnished the relevant documents sought by him.
(vi) Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, punishment was imposed against the petitioner 'withholding of two increments with cumulative effect' vide proceedings No.14530/V3/2003-1, dat
Disciplinary authorities must act independently and not under external influence when imposing punishments.
Disciplinary authorities must conduct independent inquiries and cannot rely solely on external recommendations; failure to do so renders the proceedings invalid.
Point of Law : It would not be safe to rely on the examination-in-chief recorded which was not subjected to cross examination before the summon was made.
Disciplinary authorities must provide reasons for disagreeing with enquiry officer findings and issue a second show cause notice before imposing punishment, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The principles of natural justice must be upheld in disciplinary proceedings, and reliance on improper external influences can invalidate decisions made by disciplinary authorities.
The disciplinary authority must independently assess penalties without undue influence from external advice, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
The Disciplinary Authority must issue a reasoned notice of disagreement when departing from exonerating findings in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring the principles of natural justice are upheld.
Point of Law- The word “consider”, is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.