2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17749

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NINALA JAYASURYA,Tuhin Kumar Gedela
Secy. Finance Dept. – Appellant
Versus
Chaparala Adi Lakshmi – Respondent
WP 1114/2018

The court held that disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when the Department fails to furnish requested documents under statutory rules and adduces no evidence to prove charges, violating principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (`APCS (CCA) Rules') - Rule 20 - Procedure for imposing major penalties - Rule 3 and 4 mandate the supply of a list of documents and witnesses to the charged officer to sustain articles of charge - Non-furnishing of documents listed in Annexure-II of the charge memo constitutes a violation of Rule 20 and a gross violation of principles of natural justice, vitiating the entire disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 21, 22, 31, 32)

(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Standard of proof - Whilst the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is one of preponderance of probabilities, there must be some evidence to prove the charge - The burden of proof lies with the Department to adduce evidence to substantiate the charges - In the absence of any oral evidence and where the documents relied upon were not furnished to the delinquent, a finding of guilt cannot be sustained on mere surmises and conjectures. (Paras 25, 27, 28, 29, 30)

(C) Disciplinary proceedings vs. Criminal proceedings - Acquittal in a criminal case or deletion from the array of accused is not a ground to drop disciplinary proceedings per se, but a thorough investigation by the CBCID resulting in no criminal charges against the delinquent, coupled with a forensic report doubting signatures, is a relevant factor that the disciplinary authority must consider, and the disciplinary proceedings cannot be based on no evidence. (Paras 33, 35)

(D) Judicial review - The High Court will not interfere with punishment if the enquiry is consistent with prescribed rules and reasonable opportunity was afforded - However, where the enquiry is vitiated by violation of statutory rules and natural justice, the punishment warranting no evidence can be interfered with. (Para 34)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, a Pay and Accounts Officer, was placed under suspension and a charge memo was issued. The applicant requested documents listed in Annexure-II, which were not furnished. She submitted an explanation reserving the right to file an additional statement. An Enquiry Officer held six of eight charges proved, including a major charge of fraudulent encashment of cheques in collusion with others. The Government imposed a penalty of permanently withholding pensionary benefits and recovery of a misappropriated amount. The applicant challenged this before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which held the enquiry was vitiated due to non-furnishing of documents, non-examination of witnesses, and violation of natural justice, but granted liberty to the State to impose a lesser punishment. Both the State and the applicant filed writ petitions.

Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal's order interfering with the punishment was correct. The non-furnishing of documents was a clear violation of Rule 20 of the APCS (CCA) Rules. The Department failed to examine any witnesses to prove the charges, especially the serious charge of collusion, which was fatal to the enquiry. The report from the Forensic Science Laboratory doubting the signatures and the CBCID investigation deleting the applicant from the accused list further supported the applicant's case. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order granting the State liberty to impose lesser punishment, as the entire enquiry was vitiated and no valid basis existed for any punishment.

Issues: 1. Whether the order of the Tribunal in interfering with the punishment imposed on the applicant is not sustainable and liable to be set aside? 2. Whether the order of the Tribunal to the extent of directing lesser punishment on the applicant on the premise that there was a lack of proper supervision on her subordinates is liable to be quashed? 3. Whether the applicant/delinquent officer is entitled to interest on delayed payments for terminal benefits?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to the failure to supply documents mandated by Rule 20 of the APCS (CCA) Rules and the complete failure to adduce any evidence (oral or documentary) to prove the charges, violating principles of natural justice. As the foundational facts of the enquiry were unsustainable, no action could be taken on the basis of the report, and the liberty granted to impose a lesser punishment was also unsustainable. The court also held that the applicant is entitled to 6% interest per annum on the amounts due to her (retirement benefits) due to the prolonged, unjustified proceedings. Result : W.P.No.1114 of 2018 (filed by the State) is dismissed. W.P.No.8018 of 2018 (filed by the applicant) is allowed in part with interest @ 6% p.a. The amounts due along with interest shall be paid within three months from the date of receipt of the order copy. No costs.