STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. I RAGHU BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Government Pleader for Services-II as well as Sri M.P. Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent employee.

(2.) THE 1st respondent while working as a Senior Assistant in the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Anakapalle, Visakhapatnam District, has been trapped successfully by the Anti Corruption Bureau (henceforth for brevity referred to as 'the ACB') on 9.4.1998, while accepting illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from an agent, hence, the 1st respondent has been charge- sheeted in CC No. 18 of 1999, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge for ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. THE learned Sessions Judge after a full-fledged trial convicted the 1st respondent by his judgment dated 21.2.2006 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-, in default of payment of which amount, the 1st respondent was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. THE 1st respondent has preferred Criminal Appeal No.278 of 2006 before this Court and entertaining Criminal MP No.298 of 2006 in the said Appeal, this Court passed an order suspending the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the 1st respondent on his executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for the like sum. THE said criminal appeal is still pending. In view of his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, a show-cause notice was issued on 30.6.2007, proposing to dismiss him from service. Aggrieved by the said show-cause notice, the 1st respondent has approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') and instituted OA No.4503 of 2007. Entertaining the said O.A., the Tribunal by it's orders dated 24.8.2007 injuncted the respondents therein not to issue any further orders pursuant to the impugned show-cause notice dated 30.6.2007 and directed the O.A., itself to be posted for orders after four weeks, so that, in the meantime, the respondents can file their counter-affidavit. It is averred that a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed before the Tribunal on 2.11.2007 requesting the Tribunal to vacate the interim orders passed by it on 24.8.2007, but no orders have been passed so far. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader would contend that the State Government is entitled to take into consideration the conviction handed down to the 1st respondent employee for an offence involving moral turpitude after a full-fledged trial by the learned Sessions Judge and hence, the State Government has exercised the power available to it under Rule 25 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (henceforth referred to as 'the CCA Rules') and issued him a show-cause notice proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal. THE State Government has absolute competence to initiate action in terms of Rule 25 of the CCA Rules and hence, the Tribunal has committed gross error of jurisdiction in entertaining OA No.4503 of 2007 instituted by the 1st respondent employee herein and, above all, without assigning any reasons, whatsoever, has injuncted the State Government from passing any further orders pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 30.6.2007. THErefore, the learned Government Pleader would contend that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdictional limits in passing the order dated 24.8.2007. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader that every Government Servant is liable to maintain good conduct throughout his tenure of employment and even beyond thereafter. If a Government Servant has been convicted of a criminal charge, the conduct of such an employee is bound to be taken into account and consideration and the State Government can invoke the power available to it under Rule 25 of the CCA Rules. Since no employee should be condemned unheard, the show-cause notice was drawn and issued to the 1st respondent herein on 30.6.2007. So long as the conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude is staring at the 1st respondent, he cannot make any grievance out of the exercise carried out by the State Government, hence, the learned Government Pleader would submit that the orders passed by the Tribunal, ex facie, are illegal.