THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO.5447 OF 2024

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“… directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing the impugned GO RT No.424, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Vig-I) Department, dated 29.06.2018 of the first respondent/State Government by setting aside the same holding it to be illegal, arbitrary and invalid with a consequential direction to accord all service benefits to petitioner as if the said impugned order has not been passed …..”

2) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Engineering Services on 08.04.1992. While he was working as Assistant Executive Engineer at MPP, Wardhannapet, Warangal District, a Charge Memo bearing No.387/V.A-1/A1/2001-13, dated 07.08.2002, was communicated to the petitioner through respondent No.2 framing two charges, for which, the petitioner has submitted his defence on 10.11.2003 denying both the charges. However, an enquiry was conducted by the Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj, who submitted the Enquiry Report vide Letter No.BPR-II/2575/2003, dated 17.09.2004, to respondent No.2 holding that both the charges are not proved. Subsequently, respondent No.2 vide letter No.Vig.III (ii)/5970/2001, dated 03.03.2005, while accepting the Enquiry Report, has forwarded the said Enquiry Report to respondent No.1 requesting to drop the charges against the petitioner and other Charged Officers. However, without considering the said Enquiry Report, the Government has referred the matter again to the Commissioner of Enquiry vide G.O.Rt.Nos.1881 and 1882, PR & RD (Vig.) Dept., dated 09.11.2005. Pursuant to the same, a second enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to respondent No.1 vide Memo No.387/Vig.I/2001-48, dated 27.04.2007, holding both the charges against the petititoner are proved. The said enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner asking for his explanation and the petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 04.06.2007 refuting the findings given in the enquiry report. At that stage, questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, while considering his juniors, he filed O.A. No.9094/2008 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. On 02.12.2008, the Tribunal has issued interim direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, without reference to the charges. Accordingly, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer vide proceedings No.D/33924/ 2008, dated 23.07.2009, and he has been working as such. While so, the Government has issued the impugned G.O. RT.No.424, dated 29.06.2018, imposing the penalty of reversion to the lower rank, upon the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.2 in his letter No.Vig.I(5)/ 5970/01, dated 17.11.2020 and Vig.III(2)/5970/01, 14.06.2022, requested respondent No.1 to issue clarification regarding the words ‘reversion to lower rank’ , to which, clarification was issued vide Memo No.PRRD-VENG/2/8/2020-88, dated 24.01.2024, indicating that the punishment was reversion to lower post of Assistant Executive Engineer, to which post the petitioner was directly recruited. Hence, the present writ petition.

3) This Court on 20.03.2024 while issuing notice before Admission has passed interim orders directing the respondents to continue the services of the petitioner as Deputy Executive Engineer.

4) Heard Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned penalty imposed on the petitioner on the basis of the second enquiry report dated 27.04.2007 brushing aside the first enquiry report dated 17.09.2004 is illegal and liable to be set aside in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon