PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A P HYDERABAD Vs. M ADINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This wnt petition iled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and the Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad, is directed against the judgment and order dated 22-2-2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad, (for short 'the APAT') allowing O.A.No.6755 of 2000 filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the order issued in G.O. Ms. No. 520 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 28-10-2000.

(2.) The background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly and they are as follows : On an information that the respondent who at the relevant point of time was working as Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad has acquired assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, a case in Re No.13/ACB-CR/93 under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered on 30-9-1992 and after registration of the case, the Investigating Officer obtained search warrants from the Principal Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at Hyderabad and conducted search of the residential premises of the respondent-charged officer bearing H.No. 12-2-717/1/24 of Sapthagm Colony, Hyderabad. The investigation into the assets and expenditure of the charged officer possessed disproportionate assets to an extent of Rs.4,78,220/- to the known source of his income. On receipt of the report and examination of the same, the Government placed the charged officer under suspension by proceedings in Government Memo No.1593/B2/93-6 M.A., dated 27-7-1995 and having formed an opinion on the basis of the records and after consulting the Head of the concerned Department decided to refer the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, (for short 'TDP'), constituted by the Government under Section 3 of the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960, (for short 'TDP Act'). Accordingly, the case was referred to the TDP for enquiry. On reference the TDP framed the following charges against the respondent-charged officer: 1. Charge No.I: That you, Sri Adinarayana joined in Government Service as Town Planning Assistant on 1-11-1965 in the Department of Town Planning at Kakinada and subsequently you were promoted as Assistant Director in the year 1978 and as Deputy Director in May 1985 and while working as such during the check period from 1-11-1965 to 1-10-1993, you actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of your official position in order to gain pecuniary benefit for yourself acquired assets worth Rs.10,02,674/-, though your income was Rs.10,50,024/- and expenditure was Rs.5,25,570/- and therefore you are found in possession of disproportionate assets to a tune of Rs.4,78,220/- and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1991 framed under the A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) (Amendment) Act, 1993. 2. Charge No.II : That you have acquired the assets i.e., house bearing No.12-2-717/124, Sapthagiri Colony, Hyderabad in your name worth Rs. 2,23,000/- and one Maruthi Car bearing Regn.No.AHU 5355 worth Rs.80,000/- that also you were allotted 2000 shares of 225 partly convertible debentures in Nagarjuna Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited on 21-3-1991 and 1-2-1993 in all worth Rs. 23,375/- and that you also purchased teak wood from Sri Venkateswara Saw Mill, Sirpur worth Rs. 58,026/- without prior permission of the Competent Authority violating Rule 9 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of A.P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1991 framed under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Amendment Act, 1993." The TDP conducted the enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the rules framed under the TDP Act. The TDP held that the charged officer is guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, for short 'TDP Rules', framed under the TDP Act, having been in possession of assets to a tune of Rs. 2,61,816.20 ps., disproportionate to the known sources of income. In respect of Charge No. 2. the TDP found that the charged officer is guilty of misconduct since he has violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 9 of the A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, for short 'the Conduct Rules'. The TDP submitted the report to the Government.

(3.) The Government served a notice vide Memo No.1593/B2/93, MA and UD Department dated 24-9-1997 on the charged officer calling upon him to submit his explanation, if any, to the report submitted by the TDP. The said notice was received by the charged officer on 30-9-1997. Questioning the validity of the said Memo, the charged officer filed AO.No.7590 of 1997 in the APAT and the same was dismissed on 31-3-1997. The charged officer being aggrieved by the order of the APAT filed W.P. No.8798 of 1998 which was disposed of on 27-4-1998. This Court while disposing of the above writ petition directed that "it will be open to the petitioner to take all objections as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and other issues before the Government, which issued the show-cause -notice." Subsequently, the charged officer filed one more OA being O.A.No.4087 of 1998 wherein he sought a direction to the Government to submit his explanation to the show-cause notice initially with regard to jurisdiction aspect of the TDP only and remaining with regard to the factual aspect and other legal aspects to submit his explanation at a later stage, if any necessity arises. It is stated in the impugned order of the APAT that OA No.4087 of 1998 was heard and reserved for orders on 16-8-1998 and no orders were passed. When the matter stood thus, by memo dated 11-12-1998, the charged officer was requested to submit his explanation on or before 31-12-1998 to the notice dated 24-9-1997 without fail. The charged officer, when he received the above memo dated 11-12-1998, filed M.A.No. 4308 of 1998 in OA No. 4087 of 1998 on 24-12-1998 praying the APAT to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Government Memo dated 24.9.1997, and it is stated that the APAT did not pass any order on the said miscellaneous application till the Tribunal passed the impugned order. However, on 3.1-12-1998, the charged officer submitted his explanation with regard to the jurisdiction of the TDP and requested the Government to dispose of the question of jurisdiction in the first instance. In the said explanation the charged officer also stated that he was not in a position to submit his explanation with regard to factual aspects inasmuch as he was handicapped by the demise of his Counsel whose services were engaged by him to represent his case before the TDP and consequent misplacement of the documents. The charged officer in the said explanation also brought to the notice of the Government that in the absence of documents and necessary materials, he was not in a position to submit his explanation on or before 31-12-1998 as demanded by the Government vide Memo dated 11-12-1998. The charged officer, therefore, requested the Government to furnish him all the records and that request was refused by the Government on the ground that there was no provision to furnish reports to the delinquent officer under the service rules. However, subsequently, the charged officer submitted his explanation with regard to tactual aspects also on 31-3-1999.