THE GOVERNMENT OF A.P., REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS. Vs. P. KRISHNA REDDY AND THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent was working as Head Master in Zilla Parishad High School in Chittoor District. In the year 2002, the Zilla Parishad, Chittoor has undertaken certain works as part of programme, viz., Janmabhoomi. Certain complaints were received to the effect that a Senior Assistant, by name, A.S. Shajahan; Superintendent of Mandal Parishad, Gudipala Mandal, Sri C. Ramanamurthy Reddy, and Sri P. Krishna Reddy, the 1st respondent herein (for short 'the respondent') have resorted to irregularities. It was also alleged that the respondent who was working as Head Master, in the Z.P. High School, Mullhaevulu, at the relevant point of time, functioned as benami contractor and caused financial loss to the Government. A common enquiry was proposed, charge memos were issued to all the three persons, named above. The respondent submitted his explanation on 15 -01 -2003. The other two persons submitted their explanations in February and April 2003. The Government in Panchayat Raj Department, the 1st petitioner, examined the explanations, and not satisfied with the same, ordered common enquiry, in exercise of Rule 24 of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'the Rules). The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Chittoor, was appointed as enquiry officer through G.O.Rt. No. 1077, dated 23 -07 -2003. The enquiry officer submitted the report, holding that the charges against the respondent are proved. Taking the same into account, the 1st petitioner issued memo dated 08 -09 -2005, requiring the respondent to explain as to why the major penalty be not imposed against him, under Rule 9 of the Rules. The respondent is said to have not submitted any reply. Through U.O. Note No. 11673/Vig.III/2004 -14, dated 19 -01 -2010, the 1st petitioner requested the Department of School Education to dismiss the respondent from service. Acting on that, the Commissioner of School Education, the 3rd petitioner addressed letter dated 07 -05 -2010 to the Regional Joint Director of School Education, the 4th petitioner. The latter, in turn, issued proceedings dated 27 -05 -2010, imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent.

(2.) THE respondent filed O.A. No. 3520 of 2010, challenging the order of dismissal. He pleaded that the findings recorded against him by the enquiry officer are totally untenable and that the petitioners herein have violated the procedure prescribed under the relevant provisions of law. The O.A. was opposed by the petitioners by filing counter -affidavit.

(3.) LEARNED Government Pleader for Services -II submits that, in view of the large scale irregularities resorted to by the employees of different categories, the Government exercised powers under Rule 24 of the Rules and ordered a detailed enquiry. He contends that the enquiry officer submitted a report, holding that the charge against the respondent is proved and punishment was also imposed, according to Rules. He submits that the prescribed procedure was followed and there was no basis for the Tribunal in interfering with the order of punishment. Learned Government Pleader submits that the Tribunal has undertaken extensive discussion on the findings of the enquiry officer, as though it is an Appellate Authority and its approach is contrary to law.