RUDRAPATI SURESH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1989 as Mechanic for GDS Vijayawada and subsequently he was promoted from cadre to cadre and presently he is holding as Motor Vehicles Inspector. During his tenure, the petitioner was never imposed with any penalty much less any proceedings initiated under Rule 20 of CCA and CCS Rules for imposing either minor or major penalty. While he was working at Tetagunta check post at Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District from 4/5/2010 to 28/11/2011, a surprise check was conducted on 17/10/2010 by ACB officials, basing on which, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 13/10/2015 after lapse of a period of four years of the surprise check. It is alleged in the charge memo that the petitioner failed to supervise his subordinates properly and gave scope for collection of illegal gratification while he was on duty. He submitted his explanation on 23/11/2015 to the said charge memo, refuting the charges levelled against him and requested to drop further action. The charges levelled against the petitioner are neither grave nor any pecuniary loss occurred to the State and it revolves around misconduct or dereliction of duty or negligence in duty.

(3.) While the things stood thus, the petitioner was also issued a charge memo on 2/12/2016 alleging that while he was working in the office of Transport Commissioner at Tetagunta, a surprise check was conducted by ACB officials on 28/11/2011, alleging that money was being collected by the employees by engaging private persons as agents. The said charge memo was issued on 2/12/2016 after a period of five years. The Articles of the said charge reveal that the petitioner, in collusion with other staff at the check post, allowed unauthorized persons to act as agents in violation of Circular Orders and thus, indulged in corrupt practices from 26/11/2011 to 28/11/2011. He submitted his explanation on 29/4/2019 to the said charge memo, refuting the allegations made in the charge memo. Pursuant to the notice issued by DSP, ACB, Rajahmundry, the petitioner submitted his reply on 9/11/2012 requesting to drop further proceedings in the departmental proceedings.