The inquiry conducted under the A.P. Civil Services Rules was deficient, leading to an unjust penalty on pension.

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION (TR) NO.5660 OF 2017

O R D E R

In this Writ Petition (TR), the writ petitioner is seeking a declaration that the orders passed by the 1^st respondent in G.O.Ms.No.383, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (VIG.IA) Department dt.07.12.2011 imposing penalty of 25% cut in pension permanently under Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules against the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation of Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules and consequently to declare that the petitioner is entitled for full pension along with arrears and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the writ petitioner worked as Assistant Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department during the year 2001-2002 at MP Bejjur of Adilabad District and got executed works under food for work (rice) programme. He retired from service in the year 2006. After lapse of nearly 4 years from the date of execution of the works, the Vigilance Quality Control, Hyderabad personnel have conducted inspections and submitted report through the Chief Engineer, Vigilance Quality Control, Hyderabad on 07.04.2004 alleging that the petitioner and others involved in implementation of the programme have derelicted their official duties and committed grave irregularities and misappropriated the food for work programme rice in execution of the works under FFW (Food For Work) programme and failed to maintain and upkeep the records properly and denied total accountability in implementation of the works and that they have failed to maintain absolute integrity and caused loss to Government funds. The petitioner was therefore placed under suspension on 16.09.2004 and articles of charge were also issued on 21.03.2005. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply to the charges on 11.12.2006 denying all the charges framed against him. The petitioner had also requested for providing the records, on the basis of which the charge was made, but the records were not furnished to the petitioner and on the basis of the material available with the petitioner, he submitted his reply denying the charges in toto. It is submitted that the petitioner entered the measurements in the measurement book correctly and they were also cross-checked by the Divisional Forest Officer. After receipt of the reply of the petitioner, the matter was entrusted to the Commissioner of Inquiries against the petitioner and 8 other officers and the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj was appointed as the Presenting Officer but without conducting any enquiry as provided under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules , 1991, on the basis of the report of the Chief Engineer, Vigilance Quality Control, Hyderabad dt.07.04.2004, the Commissioner of Inquiries declared that the charges are proved against the petitioner and others. It is stated that the petitioner was only asked to appear but no statements were recorded nor were any witnesses examined nor were any documents marked and no record was made available to prove the charges. It is submitted that when the disciplinary enquiry got prolonged without finalization, the petitioner filed O.A.No.4976 of 2011 and the Tribunal directed the respondents to finalise the departmental proceedings within a period of six weeks. However, the same was not conclude