HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO W.P.No.44461 OF 2016

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:

“…Issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action in rejecting petitioners appeal dated 25.06.2014 by the first respondent vide Memo No.768/For.III/A2/2014 dated 06.10.2015 communicated to the petitioner vide Rc.No.3061/2002/S5 dated 11.01.2016 through Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad i.e., fourth respondent as arbitrary, illegal and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to accord all financial and promotional benefits for which the petitioner is eligible with retrospective effect…”

2. Heard Sri G. Raman Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined as Forest Section officer on 12.05.1986 in Adilabad Division and he was promoted as Deputy Range Officer and retired on 31.08.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. He further submits that during his service, respondent No.4 issued Articles of charge vide proceedings RC.No.3061/2002-S5 dated 31.07.2002 proposing to hold an enquiry against him by invoking the provisions of Rule 20 of AP CCA Rules, 1991(‘Rules’ for brevity) for negligence in construction of Check Dam at Kothur VSS in Tamsi Forest Section with following charges.

1. Gross neglect of duty in defective construction of Check dam at Kothur VSS resulting in washing out the Check dam II.

2. Supression of Facts.

3.1 Petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.11.2002 denying the charges levelled against him. Being not satisfied with the same, Government has appointed the Commissioner of Inquiries, GAD for conducting detailed enquiry. The enquiry officer after conducting detailed enquiry submitted enquiry report vide letter No.28(A)/C.O.I-M/BPV/2002 dated 29.05.2003 with a finding that the charge Nos.1 and 2 levelled against the petitioner are not proved. Respondent No.2 disagreeing with the report submitted by the Commissioner of Inquiries issued notice vide Prl.CCF Rc.No.30246/2002.K2, dated 28.05.2005 to the petitioner without conducting any enquiry much less independent enquiry and also without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and passed order vide proceedings No.30246/02/K2 dated 03.04.2006 awarding punishment of “Reduction in pay permanently by three(3) stages”. Pursuant to the said order, respondent No.4 had issued proceedings vide Rc.No.2088/2007/S2 dated 31.05.2007 reducing the petitioner’s pay.

3.2 Aggrieved by the above said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1 on 01.08.2006. The appellate authority without examining the grounds raised in the appeal and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner rejected the appeal and issued Memo No.7594/For-IV/A2/2006-3 dated 24.11.2008 without giving any reasons. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Memorial petition on 16.10.2009 to respondent No.1 and the said petition was also rejected on 15.07.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation to the Chief Minster on 25.06.2014 and the said application was rejected by respondent No.1 through Memo No.768/For.III/A2/2014 dated 06.10.2015.

3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the disciplinary authority imposed major punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect though he did not commit any misappropriation, misconduct while discharging his duties. Enquiry officer after conducting enquiry, submitted detailed report stating that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. In the absence of any other material evidence on record, the disciplinary authority imposed the major punishment, especially without giving opportunity much less reasonable opportunity to petitioner and the same is clear violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to law. He further contende