CH ANJAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has been working as a Junior Assistant in the revenue unit of the respondent filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 6492 of 1994, dated 10th December 1999, dismissing his application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 wherein he assailed the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent No. 1 dated 23-8-1993 finally confirming in the hierarchy of remedies, the imposition of punishment against him by stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

(2.) Briefly the facts led to the present proceedings are that the petitioner who is an ex-service man was appointed as Junior Assistant on 29-6-1984 after due selection made through the process of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, and accordingly he was posted as Village Officer. In pursuance of a complaint stated to have been made by the M.L.A of Ramannapet and Sarpanch of Mothkur against the petitioner alleging tampering of the entries in the pahariis, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir on 1-8-1990 visited the Mandal Revenue Office, Mothkur where the petitioner is working. Thereafter, the said Revenue Divisional Officer addressed a letter dated 6-8-1990 to the Collector observing that entries in the pahanis for the year 1960-61 to the effect of inclusion of Sri K.Sathaiah son of Chinna Ramulu against the land in Sy. Nos. 415 and 460 with different ink and hence there is a tampering of record and sought for an enquiry. Thereupon, the Collector, Nalgonda appointed the then Grain Purchasing Officer, Nalgonda as Enquiry Officer on 28-8-1990. The petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry on 12-10-1990. The enquiry officer vide Memo No. GP-2/22-90, dated 9-4-1991 framed two charges viz., Charge No. 1 that the petitioner submitted a note on the application filed by Kalvala Narsimhulu son of Sathaiah stating' that as per the revenue records in the pahanis for the years 1956-57, 1957-58, 1963-64 and 1967-68 the said applicant's name is appearing in patted column against the land in Sy. Nos. 415 and 460, however, as per the pahanis of the said years the name of the application does not find against the said survey numbers. Thus, therefore the petitioner has submitted a misleading note resulting in issuance of copies if of the pahanis for the above years-to a person who is not entitled to take them, secondly, the Charge No. 2 was that there is a failure on the part of the petitioner in the note dated 16-10-1989 pointing out such tampering, and therefore, it clearly indicates that the said tampering was got done in the pahanis by himself or with his knowledge. On 29-4-1991 the petitioner submitted explanation denying all the allegations in the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the said enquiry officer and the said officer submitted a report holding that in respect of charge No. 1 since there is no specific denial by the petitioner except trying to throw the responsibility on the higher officers, and therefore, it was his legitimate duty to verify the records properly and submit correct note to his superior which was not done, hence, the said charge stood proved. However, in regard to the second charge, it was observed by the enquiry officer that there is ho material evidence to establish that the said tampering was done by the petitioner, and in the absence of any such positive evidence the charge becomes doubtful. Further taking into consideration the inexperience of the petitioner, the enquiry officer gave the benefit of doubt to the delinquent on the said charge. Ultimately, it is only on the charge No. 1 the finding was held partially against him. Thereupon, the Collector issued a show-cause notice on 28-7-1991 as to why he should not be removed from the service. The said show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 14-8-1991. On 3-9-1991 the petitioner submitted the explanation and ultimately the Collector by proceedings dated 12-1-1992 passed the orders of punishment of withholding two annual grade increments, one with cumulative effect and the other one without cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Hyderabad and the same was dismissed on 29-9-1992. The further appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Government was rejected on 23-8-1993 by the impugned memo which has been assailed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in the said O.A.6492 of 1994, which was dismissed. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) Heard Sri P.R. Prasad, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II.