BOKAM SIMHADRI Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 5/6.1.1994 removing the petitioner from service as confirmed by the 1 st respondent in the Order dated 5-5-1994.

(2.) The facts and events leading to thefiling of the Writ Petition are as follows: Petitioner joined as causal labour in the Ore Handling Co-operative Society in the year 1959. Therefore, he was promoted as C-category worker and he was further promoted as B-category worker. He was also promoted to A-category worker and he was given token No. 1592 in the Traffic Department. It appears that an anonymous complaint was received by the Chairman of the Port Trust that the petitioner impersonated one Bokam Simhadri and thereby obtained employment by playing fraud on the authorities. Therefore, the 2nd respondent issued charge memo dated 21 -8-1992 requiring the petitioner to explain as to why the disciplinary action should not be taken against him. It is also stated in the said memorandum that one Bokam Sreeramulu made a complaint that the petitioner impersonated his father Bokam Simhadri and got the job. The petitioner submitted an explanation denying the allegations levelled against him. However, he stated that his cousin Bokam Sreeramulu in collusion with the petitioner's eldest son Bokam Eshwar Rao gave a false complaint against the petitioner in 1976-77 itself and the enquiry was conducted by one Mr. Vidyasagar and it was found that the complaint was false. However, another complaint was made against the petitioner about the impersonation on which charge memo was issued. The 2nd respondnet thereafter conducted an enquiry and the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge of impersonation. After receipt of the inquiry report, the petitioner submitted explanation stating that his cousin Bokam Sreeramulu in collusion with his son Eshwar Rao filed a false complaint on account of property disputes inter se and that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was not correct. However, the 2nd respondent passed Orders on 5/6-1-1994 removing the petitioner from service. Appeal filed by him was also dismissed on 5-5-1994. The said Orders as affirmed by the appellate authority came to be challenged in the Writ Petition.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner thatcharge of impersonation has been foisted against him and that he has not impersonated Bokam Sreeramulu. On the other hand, he entered the service as a labour in 1959, subsequently he was granted promotion from time to time and ultimately he was made permanent. Therefore, the question of impersonation does not arise. He further submits that there was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to sustain the charge of impersonation. Thus, the Enquiry Officer rendered the finding on the basis of the reports alleged to have been submitted by the Collector as well as the Mandal Revenue Officer and the enquiry was conducted without the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore, the Enquiry Officer ought not to have relied on such report. He also submits that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are wholly perverse and not based on legal evidence. Further, he submits that the charge of impersonation is not an enumerated misconduct under Regulation 25-C of the Regulations and therefore, he could not be proceeded with. Thus, he submits that the punishment of removal from service is illegal and unsustainable.