Subsequent repayment of misappropriated funds and acquittal in a criminal case do not exonerate an employee from departmental misconduct, and service of notice by affixture is valid when the employee's whereabouts are unknown.

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, aggrieved by the impugned order, dated 29.11.2004 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected.

02. Heard Sri K.Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel representing Sri M.Bharat Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

03. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Procurement Assistant in the year 1977. While so, he was placed under suspension on 15.04.1999 on the allegation of misappropriation, and a charge memo was issued by the Inquiry Officer on 04.09.1999. Based on the enquiry report, dated 21.02.2000, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.10.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 14.03.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was rejected. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a mercy petition, which was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No.1, and finally, the respondent No.1 passed the present impugned order.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry proceedings were conducted behind the back of the petitioner. He contended that the petitioner was arrested in a criminal case, due to which he could not attend the enquiry. He further submitted that the charge memo was affixed to the door of the petitioner’s house on 20.09.1999. Learned counsel further contended that, during the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner repaid the alleged misappropriated amounts and the same was brought to the notice of the concerned authorities; however, without considering the said fact, the petitioner was dismissed from service. He also submitted that the petitioner had thereafter made a representation to the Chairman of the Girijana Cooperative Corporation, stating that he had been acquitted in the criminal case, and had also enclosed the Judgment in S.C.No.32 of 2001, dated 16.08.2001. Learned counsel further submitted that, although the Chairman of the Girijana Cooperative Corporation, by letter dated 12.03.2003, directed the respondents to place the matter before the Board, the respondent No.1 failed to do so and instead delayed the matter for more than a year. Ultimately, the impugned orders came to be passed on the petitioner’s representation. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be allowed.

05. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 filed a counter affidavit and contended that the petitioner failed to furnish information regarding his arrest, and moreover, his whereabouts were not known. Therefore, as per the rules, the proceedings appointing the Inquiry Officer and the consequential charge memo were affixed at the residential address furnished by the petitioner at the time of joining service. He further contended that repayment of the misappropriated amount by the petitioner cannot be a ground for exonerating him from the misconduct. It was also contended that no punishment was imposed on the petitioner on account of his involvement in the criminal case, and the said charge was not decided against him; hence, the pendency of the criminal case has no bearing on the dismissal order. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the request of the petitioner to place the matter before the Board cannot be considered, as such exercise had already been undertaken, and mere acquittal in the criminal case cannot be a ground to seek reconsideration. He submitted that there are no warranting circumstances to interfere with the impugned