THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.34988 of 2012

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, declaring the action of the respondent No.2 imposing major penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect on 18.07.2011 vide Proc.No.SCA/Estt./1563/2006, and the action of respondent No.3 in confirming the punishment order vide Proc.No.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 18.10.2012 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of Job chart of Respondent Department, provisions of Seed Rules and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to grant all the service benefits, monetory benefits and all other consequential benefits including promotion as per his original entitlement and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the interest of Justice…”

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Seed Certification Officer in respondent No.1-Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency on 01.08.1985. During Rabi, 2003-04 season, while he was working as Seed Certification Officer at respondent No.1-Office at Tanuku, West Godavari District, the petitioner has attended field inspection of agricultural lands. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred from Tanuku to Hyderabad as Seed Certification Officer and joined at Hyderabad on 17.07.2009. While things stood thus, respondent No.2 issued Charge Memo No.SCA/Estt/1563/ 2006, dated 03.03.2010, alleging that the petitioner has committed irregularities in verifying the allotted seed production plots of pulses of certified seed growers and in bringing the false claims of the farmers to the notice of his superiors, to which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation. But, without considering the said explanation, respondent No.2 has ordered a regular enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer. After conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 03.11.2010 holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Thereafter, respondent No.2 being the Disciplinary Authority, issued Show Cause Notice No.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 19.03.2011, against the petitioner calling for his explanation, to which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation, dated 27.04.2011. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has passed final order, vide proceedings No.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 18.07.2011, imposing major penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No.3 on 20.10.2011, who vide proceedings No.SCA/Estt/1563/2006, dated 18.10.2012, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner confirming the order, dated 18.07.2011. Challenging by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services – III appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority are not at all sustainable either in law or in facts. The Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered that the guidelines were issued in the year, 2006, for registration and consideration of areas. The Charge Memo, dated 03.03.2010 issued against the petitioner is pertaining to the Rabi season 2003-04, by which time, there was no such procedure of verification of pattadar pass book or survey numbers etc. It is further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has relied on the observations of the Vigilance officials as apparent from the statement of imputation of charge. But, the Disciplinary Authority did not figured the Vigilance officials as list of witnesses in the Charge Memo, dated 03.03.2010, so as to enable the p