THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.15419 of 2020

ORDER:

Seeking to declare the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 vide G.O.Rt.No.660, PR & RD (Vig.II) Dept., dated 07.09.2018, insofar as it relates to imposing the punishment of withholding 15% eligible pension for a period of two years, upon the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Heard Mr. S.Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while the petitioner was working as Panchayat Secretary at Vellavula Gram Panchayat of Karimnagar District, respondent No.2 issued charge memo dated 01.04.2010 framing six charges against the petitioner. However, the said charge memo does not contain the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior by which each Article of Charge was proposed to be sustained and no copies of documents were supplied to the petitioner and therefore the Charge Memo is not inconsonance with Rule 20 (3) & (4) of APCS (CC&A) Rules (in short ‘CCA Rules’). Therefore, the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings by issuing Charge memo is contrary to Rule 20 of CCA Rules. In response to the charge memo dated 01.04.2010, petitioner has submitted his detailed explanation on 11.05.2010 denying the charges and requesting to drop the proceedings. But, without considering the same, the respondents in a routine manner appointed an Enquiry Officer, who did not even conducted a regular enquiry as contemplated under Rule 20 of CCA Rules, as no witnesses were examined and even the statement of the petitioner was not taken, and submitted his report holding that charges 1 to 5 are proved against the petitioner. Further, based on the enquiry report, respondent No.2 has issued memo dated 11.07.2011 directing the petitioner to submit his explanation on the enquiry report, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 29.08.2011 narrating the true facts. However, without considering the same in proper manner, respondent No.2 has issued proceedings No.10861/CPR&RE/B2/2009, dated

07.09.2012, imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service.

3.1) Learned counsel further submits that aggrieved by the proceedings dated 07.09.2012, petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.1 raising several grounds. But, without considering the same, respondent No.1 has dismissed the appeal vide Memo No.22777/Vig.III-A/2012-2, dated 28.01.2013, contrary to Rule 37 of CCA Rules. Further, pursuant to the representations made by the petitioner, respondent No.1 vide Memo No.25389/Vig.II- A1/2013-1, dated 05.11.2013, directed the District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar, respondent No.4 herein, to conduct re-enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner and submit his report. Thus, in view of the said memo dated 05.11.2023, the order of punishment dated 07.09.2012 passed by respondent No.2 as confimed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 28.01.2013 deem to have been set aside. It is further contended that though respondent No.1 directed respondent No.4 to conduct re-enquiry and submit report, without implementing the same and even without examining the petitioner, respondent No.4 has submitted his report vide letter dated 07.04.2014, on assumptions and presumptions, holding that charges 1 to 5 are proved. In the said report, dated 07.04.2014, it was also clearly mentioned that on receipt of information from Deputy Executive Engineer (PR), Huzurabad, further report will be submitted. However, without waiting for such further report to be submitted by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 has issued Memo No.25389/Vig.II/A1/ 2013-5, dated 08.06.2015, again rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. Questioning the orders dated 08.06.2015 and 07.09.2012, petitioner filed O.A. No.2992 of 2015 before the Andhra Prad