HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 5925 OF 2017

O R D E R:

Petitioner questions the order dated 18.01.2017 of the 2^nd respondent whereby and whereunder he was dismissed from service with immediate effect together with recovery of Rs.10,63,180/- for the irregularities committed by him in implementation of Indiramma Housing Programme at Basheerbad (M) of Ranga Reddy District.

2. The crisp case of petitioner is that he was issued charge memo dated 24.09.2010 alleging that he released payment of Rs.6,58,210/- to 30 beneficiaries towards old houses; released payment of Rs.10,74,620/- to 62 beneficiaries without grounding the construction of houses which is in violation of Rule 20(4) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘the Rules’). It is stated, the charge memo had not mentioned the names of proposed witnesses. He submitted representation dated 21.12.2010 to the 5^th respondent to furnish the details of cases, such as names of beneficiaries, village and the amount paid to them. The 5^th respondent furnished certain information. He submitted written defense statement on 06.06.2011 to the 3^rd respondent clearly stating the payments made, details of stages of houses, etcetera. According to petitioner, the Enquiry Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 20(10)(a) of the Rules, as per which, oral and documentary evidence by which articles of charges are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of disciplinary authority. Based on such a report, the 3^rd respondent vide Memo dated 17.05.2012 for which, petitioner submitted explanation on 06.06.2012 stating that on the instructions and report of MHOs. only, he generated payment release orders; all the payments were transferred to the individual beneficiaries’ accounts and no beneficiary disputed acknowledgment of payment, hence, fixing responsibility on him is not correct.

2.1 It is stated, the Chief Engineer, Telangana State Housing Corporation Limited vide Memo dated 05.09.2015 communicated the Enquiry Report and called for the explanation from petitioner. It is alleged, Chief Engineer is not the disciplinary authority either for imposing minor or major penalty as per Annexure-III of A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited Employees’ Service Rules. In respect of minor penalty, the 3^rd respondent and in respect of major penalty, the 2^nd respondent is the competent authority. Hence, the memo dated 05.09.2015 is liable to be held as bad in law. Further, there are discrepancies in the findings of the Enquiry Report of the 4th respondent to the findings recorded in Memo dated 05.09.2015 of the Chief Engineer. Based on the above two reports, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings imposing major penalty of dismissal from service together with recovery of Rs.10,63,180/-, hence, the same may be set aside, emphasizes petitioner.

3. This Court by order dated 22.02.2017, while directing learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation to get instructions on the issue whether door to door enquiry as recorded in the report of the Enquiry Officer was conducted with prior notice to petitioner and in his presence, granted stay of recovery of the amount mentioned in the proceedings. The said order was extended thereafter until further orders.

4. The General Manager (Admn.) of the 2^nd respondent Corporation filed counter stating that the Hon’ble MLA, Tandur Constituency made certain allegations against petitioner in making payments to beneficiaries at Bahseerabad Village and Mandal; accordingly, M/s Pragna Research and Consultancy Services conducted enquiry and noticed certain irregularities in making payments to the beneficiaries to a tune of Rs.86,03,768/- at Basheerabad Village and Mandal; after that, the Special Officer (Housing), Ranga Reddy visited and verified the records and noticed the irregularities to a tune of Rs.90,28,628/-; accordingly, articles of charge were issued to petitioner along with four other employees; out of that, petition