P RAMAIAB Vs. COLLECTOR, KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises in this Writ Petition is whether an enquiry was held by a competent authority in accordance with the statutory requirements of Rule 19(2) of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').

(2.) The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, was officiating as Head Clerk of the Sub-Collector's Office, Nandyal at the date when charges were framed against him. The Petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 29-11-1966 by the Collector, Kurnool. The charge memo shows that during the period ho was working as Head clerk, Sub-Collector's Office, Nandyal, certain records of enquiry dispatched to the Sub-Collector, Nandyal from the Collector's office were not traceable. Those records related to the enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, against a village Munsif. The entry relating to the receipt of those records was made in the concerned register on 27-4-1965 by the petitioner and then they were marked to clerk 'C'. Initials of 'C' cleric were not obtained in token of his having received the records from the petitioner but the initials of another person by name Vincent Charles, a copyist, were obtained on 29-4-1965. Those records were subsequently found missing from the office of the Sub-Collector. The allegation against the petitioner was that when the concerned 'C' clerk had attended the office on that date, there was no necessity at all for the petitioner, instead of entrusting the records to that particular clerk whose duty was to receive those records, to entrust them to a copyist who had no connection whatsoever with the records and obtain his initials in token of his having received in that section. The petitioner was responsible for the proper distribution of the records and as he failed to make proper distribution of the records to the concerned clerks resulting in the records being not traceable, the charge memo was served. The second charge related to his failure to check the relevant registers and exercise proper control over those working under him in the office of the sub-collector. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the charge memo. His attention was drawn to Rule 19(2) of the Rules and questionnaire was also enclosed. He was specifically told to resubmit the questionnaire form duly answered within the stipulated time and if he failed to do so, it would be presumed that he had no explanation to offer and further action would be taken on the material available on record.

(3.) The Collector, Kurnool, is the appointing authority who caused the charge memo served on the petitioner through the Sub-Collector and he imposed the punishment of removal from service. But the Board of Revenue, on an appeal preferred by the petitioner, reduced the punishment to one of reduction in rank to the next lower post viz. that of an upper Division Clerk. It is this reduction in rank that is now assailed in this writ petition,