K. KUSUMA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the impugned G.O.Rt. No. 455, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (VIG.IV), dated 29.07.2019, issued by the 1st respondent imposing a major penalty of stoppage of one year annual grade increment with cumulative effect, basing on the inquiry report, dated 07.03.2018, as the same is without jurisdiction or authority and is without following the procedure contemplated under the provisions of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (for short, 'Rules') and to declare the enquiry report, dated 07.03.2018 submitted by the Inquiry Officer, as illegal.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Extension Officer (PR and RD) having been appointed by virtue of the proceedings, dated 26.02.2005, of the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. A charge memo was issued to the petitioner with the following charges:

(3.) All Annexures were shown in the said charge memo. Annexures II and III would show that the vigilance report, dated 28.05.2015, is the basis for framing charges. There were no witnesses for such allegations made against the petitioner. The said vigilance report is behind the back of the petitioner and the same is not served on her and hence, it is not binding on her. However, as the 1st respondent directed her to submit an explanation, she submitted the same and an enquiry officer was appointed. Thereafter, she appeared before the enquiry officer and while the enquiry was going on, the respondents convened the Departmental Promotion Committee in the month of July, 2017 and promotion to the petitioner was denied on the ground that the charge memo was pending. Thereby, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 2493 of 2017 and obtained an interim order. But, subsequently, the OA was dismissed. The enquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner from charge No. 1 as it was not proved. Charges 2 and 3 were held as partly proved. Challenging the order passed in O.A. No. 2493 of 2017, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 30613 of 2018. The said writ petition was closed directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the articles of charges framed against the petitioner taking into account the findings of the enquiry officer on the report, dated 07.03.2018, within a period of six weeks. Pursuant to the directions of the High Court, the impugned proceeding got to be passed. Respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned proceedings as the competent authority is the disciplinary authority that is the 2nd respondent. As per sub-rule (2) clause (1) of Rule 14 of Rules, the right of appeal to the petitioner provided under Rules 33 and 34 is lost due to the said reason.