An order of dismissal from service based on a departmental inquiry is unsustainable if the inquiry was conducted in violation of mandatory procedural rules, specifically by recording witness statements behind the delinquent employee's back without allowing for proper cross-examination and adherence to statutory disciplinary procedures.

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in dismissing the petitioner from service vide Proceedings No.4892/CPR&RE/E3/2017, dated 04.02.2024 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-

(a) The petitioner was selected by the Public Service Commission and was appointed as MPDO on 16.10.1999 and he has been discharging his duties without any complaint. He worked as MPDO at Peddapally, Karimnagar District, during the period from 23.09.2013 to 25.02.2014 and again from 01.07.2014 to 22.12.2016. While so, on 30.05.2016, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, issued notice to that petitioner alleging that he has not remitted an amount of Rs.7,66,000/- to the concerned account. The said amount was undisbursed Aasara Pension, which was supposed to be distributed/disbursed by the Panchayat Secretaries of different villages. The petitioner has not submitted his explanation to the said notice. The undisbursed Aasara Pension was returned to or paid back in the office of MPDO by the concerned Panchayat Secretaries. The amount appears to have been handed over to the Junior Assistant of Office of MPDO, Peddapally. At that point of time, the Junior Assistant of the office of MPDO had received an amount of Rs.5,16,000/- and Rs.2,46,500/-.

(b) The Junior Assistant by name Sri Hari Krishna Prasad appears to have made an application to the higher officials stating that he had handed over the said amount to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not remit the amount to the concerned account. According to the said Sri Hari Krishna, an amount of Rs.1,89,000/- was remitted to SNA account and an amount of Rs.5,73,500/- is still lying with the petitioner and he did not remit the said amount. The allegation made by the said Junior Assistant that he handed over the said amount to the petitioner is false.

(c) One Sri P.Ashok Kumar, Revenue Divisional Officer was appointed as an Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 13.05.2016 and he has given notices to the petitioner on 16.07.2016, 28.09.2016 and 05.10.2015 fixing the dates of enquiry on 18.07.2016, 04.10.2016 and 10.10.2016. The petitioner appeared before the said Enquiry officer on the said dates. But, the Enquiry Officer was busy and he did not conduct any enquiry in the presence of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer collected the statements of Sri S.Hari Krishna Prasad and Panchayat Secretaries behind the back of the petitioner and submitted a report vide reference No.A/2741/2016, dated 06.09.2017 stating that the allegation levelled against the petitioner was proved. The Commissioner Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment directed the Chief Executive Officer to prepare draft articles of charge.

(d) The 2nd respondent issued Charge Memo to the petitioner on 20.03.2018 framing three articles of charges against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.12.2019 to the said Charge Memo. The 2nd respondent had appointed the CEO, ZPP, Karimnagar, as the Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 21.05.2018 i.e., even before the receipt of the explanation from the petitioner. The 2nd respondent also appointed the District Panchayat Officer as the presenting officer. The CEO fixed the dates of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer called several persons to her office and collected their statements. Around 14 persons were called a