M. KALPANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Stenographer in the year 2012 and while she was working in the office of 3rd respondent, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dtd. 3/6/2020 on the ground that she committed corrupt practices and misappropriated Government funds and fraudulently withdrawn an amount of Rs.7,14,600.00 instead of Rs.49,600.00 and a case was registered as Crime No. 196 of 2020 on the complaint made by one Mr. K. Janardhan Naidu, Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Tirupati on 28/5/2020. Later a show-cause notice dtd. 14/8/2021 was issued to the petitioner, for which the petitioner has submitted detailed explanation on 13/9/2021. However, having been not satisfied with the explanation the 2nd respondent issued Memorandum of Article of Charge dtd. 30/10/2021, for which she submitted explanation on 15/11/2021 and on the same day an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed through different proceedings dtd. 30/10/2021. More than 20 months have elapsed after her suspension and about 6 months have elapsed after issuance of Charge Memo dtd. 30/10/2021, till date nothing transpired and no steps taken for conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, the respondents filed counter denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that as per Rule 20(5)(c) says that the disciplinary authority shall serve copies of the orders appointing the Inquiry Authority and the Presenting Officer on the Government Servant and inform him/her that he/she may take the assistance of any other government servant to present the case on his/her behalf, but he/she may not engage legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner or the appointing authorities, having regard to the circumstances of the case, so permits, and ask him/her to finalize the selection of his defence assistance before the commencement of proceedings. It is further stated that, in this case, the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is Sri. J. Venkata Rao, DSP, ACB, Guntur. He is not a legal practitioner. Therefore, the Charged Government Servant is not entitled to engage a Legal Practitioner to defend her case before the Inquiry Officer. Still the Government is requesting to permit her to engage a legal practitioner to defence her case before the Inquiry Officer which is against the principles of natural justice. The provisions of Indian Evidence Act 1872 are not applicable to the Departmental Inquiries.