U. YESU RATNAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner worked as Mandal Engineering Officer, Mandal Parishad, Seethanagaram, on deputation basis in Vizianagaram district, executed Food for Work Programme in the year 1998 to 2000, which were relating to construction of Roads and Buildings and they were completed in the year 2000 itself. Basing on a complaint, against the works executed by the eptitoenr and his superiors the then Executive Engineer, Panchyat Raj, Vigilance and Quality Control, Visakhapatnam, made enquiry and submitted a report on 2/3/2008 to the Chief Engineer, Vigilance and Quality Control by forming two teams to certify the work already finished in the year 2. As per the said report, it was clearly mentioned that out of 35 works, 13 works are earthen formation and it is not possible to verify them after lapse of nearly 5 years. The exact location of the work, where the work was executed, was not mentioned in the M.Books. Earth works cannot be verified after such length of time as it was executed 5 years back. Minimum percentage of verification was not done by the Deputy Executive Engineer and has not appended his initial for the same work. Further, the Deputy Executive Engineer failed to inform higher authorities immediately after noticing tampering by adding of items by Sec. Officer. The ENC submitted a report to the Government on 28/5/2012 enhancing the amount to be recovered, without any valid reasons and without any proper inspection, informed that tampering was done by U.Yesuratnam i.e., the petitioner alone, MEO, Balajipeta in M.Books. The misappropriation amount comes to Rs.5,06,301.00, but whereas the amount mentioned by the Quality Control Department comes to Rs.1,50,000.00. As per the report dtd. 28/5/2012 submitted by the ENC to the Government just only a deskwork and further, the three officials were responsible for the loss to the Government and it is further submitted that the Vigilance and Quality Control Department has reported that inspection teams did not identify the balance of works during their inspection conducted 3 to 4 years back and at this stage i.e., after 8 years of execution of those works, it is highly difficult to identify and inspect the work now. It is further stated that the Enquiry Officer submitted a report. In the enquiry, the petitioner submitted his defence to the effect that initial report of Quality Controller finds that only Rs.1,50,000.00 was misappropriated, but in the report of the ENC, the amount encroached to Rs.5,06,301.00. The enquiry Officer failed to take into consideration of the defence submitted by the petitioner and failed to give any reasons to the effect that the loss caused to the Government is Rs.5,06,301.00 and that there is no evidence produced by the Department before the Enquiry Officer. So, findings are bad in law. It is further stated that the incident pertains to 2008 and the punishment imposed on the petitioner is in 2022. So, there is lot of delay in departmental proceedings. The petitioner is having only 2 years of service and his son is studying Medicine, if the punishment is imposed, he has to undergo hardship before this retirement for no fault of him in delay in departmental enquiry, in spite of the report submitted by the Quality Control and vigilance Department to recover Rs.1,50,000.00 from all the three persons who are responsible at that time. However, for the reasons best known to the administration, the petitioner was alone penalized. The respondents have left off the others and imposed major penalty against the petitioner, which amounts to selective punishment and it is disproportionate. Therefore, questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the Inquiry authority has furnished inquiry report dtd. 20/2/2017, wherein, the petitioner has admitted in his defence statement about adding of measurements but pleaded to excuse the same as he recorded those measurements un-knowingly. The Inquiry Authority has also mentioned that the petitioner in another statement also he had written in between specified lines in the M.Books due to completion of link in his pen and asked ball point pen from another person and wrote the balance recording. The inquiry officer further mentioned that the petitioner has stated that the Executive Engineer, Vigilance and Quality Control, Visakhapatnam has recommended for recovery of Rs.1,50,003.00 only but not Rs.5,06,301.00 but on verification of the report dtd. 2/3/2008 it was found that Rs.1,50,003.00 recovery was proposed for 43 works verified, but charges were framed subsequently for recovery of Rs.5,06,301.00 for 66 works verified by the Vigilance and Quality Control Visakhapatnam. Hence, the contention of the petitioner is not correct and accordingly the inquiry authority concluded inquiry report and stated that charge framed against the petitioner is held proved. It is also stated that with regard to Sri L.N.V. Sridhar Raja, MPDO, the Inquiry Authority ahs mentioned that charge is not proved against him with respect to financial loss to Government but certain procedural lapses were found such as errors committed in making pass orders while making payments to work bills. It is further stated that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and others in the disciplinary case. After due consultation with A.P. Advisory commission and after following due procedure under rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991 Government have issued final orders dropping further action against the Charged Officers 1 and 2. But in respect of the petitioner, the Government have imposed the penalty besides recovery vide G.O.Rt.No.686, dtd. 27/12/2021. As such the delay occurred in finalizing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is only administrative in nature.