SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 19545

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare Memo No.6644/Vig.III(1)/2010-4 dated 24.01.2011 issued by the Government, whereby the Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the proceedings of the Transport Commissioner vide R.No.133/3/2000-2 dated 24.04.2010 was rejected, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice.

2. The facts of the case in brief, shorn off unnecessary details, that led to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows:-

The petitioner was appointed as Attender in the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Karimnagar on 21.06.1999. While so, it was alleged that during the period from 17.08.1999 to 02.11.1999, he prepared forged challans and misappropriated compounding fee of Rs.2,07,310/- and on the said charge, a Criminal Case was filed against him, vide Calendar Case No. 145 of 2001. After full-fledged trial, the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, vide judgment, dated 21.10.2005, found the petitioner not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC and accordingly, acquitted him.

2.1. It is stated that after acquittal by the Criminal Court, on the same allegation, a charge memo viz. No.133/C2/V3/2000 dated 25.4.2005 was issued to the petitioner by the Transport Commissioner, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.05.2005 denying the charge levelled against him and stated that on the same allegation, a criminal case had been filed against him and he was acquitted by the Criminal Court and therefore, the Departmental enquiry is a bar.

2.2. It is further stated that in spite of explanation and the Judgment of the Criminal Court acquitting the petitioner, the Joint Transport Commissioner, (V&E), Hyderabad, who was appointed as Enquiry Officer, conducted a joint enquiry against the petitioner as well as one Sri B.Bhadru Naik, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (AMVI), wherein the charged framed against the petitioner is as under:-

"That Sri G. Ramesh, S/o Sri Venkataiah, joined Government service on 21.06.1999. While he was functioning as Attender attached to AMVI Flying Squad at Karimnagar District, on deputation from January, 1999 to March, 2000, has committed grave misconduct inasmuch as he and AMVI Flying Squad namely Sri B. Bhadru, embezzled the Government revenue to a tune of Rs. 2,07,310/-by way of submitting forged challans in number 226 in the office of the Dy. Transport Commissioner and Secretary at Karimnagar and failed to maintain absolute integrity in violation of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Thus, G. Ramesh, by his above mentioned acts, has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct, unbecoming of a member of service and thereby, contravened Rule 3 (1) & (2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

2.3. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer considering the defence taken by the petitioner, but without seeking any further evidence, except examining the prosecution witnesses who were already examined before the Criminal Court, submitted his report that the charges framed against the petitioner are held to be proved.

2.4. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority-Transport Commissioner, after careful examination of the Enquiry Report, the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the Enquiry Report and the material available on record, found that the charge levelled against the petitioner was established and accordingly, imposed the penalty of dismissal of the petitioner from service.

2.5. It is further stated that against the said order, the petitioner filed an Appeal to the Government on 17.05 2010, and as the Appeal was not disposed of, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.4696 of 2010. The Tribunal disposed of the said OA vide judgment dated 14.07.2010, with a direction to the respondents to consider the Appeal preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of three months from the date of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top