P. GOVARDHANA Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Health Assistant at Tirupathi on 30/12/1985 and worked in different municipalities. Later the petitioner was promoted as Sanitary Inspector on 11/10/1991 and further promoted as Sanitary Supervisor by the 2nd respondent on 22/7/2015. The post of Health Assistant/Sanitary Inspector/Sanitary Supervisor are governed by AP Municipal Health (Municipalities) Sub-ordinate service rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.84, MA & UD (G.1) Department, dtd. 14/2/2012. The post of Sanitary Inspector comes under Category-1 at S.No.2 and the post of Sanitary Supervisor s comes under Category-1 at S.No.1 and for both posts, the 2nd respondent is the appointing authority and as per CCA rules, the appointing authority will be the disciplinary authority. As per Rules, the disciplinary authority shall issue charge Memo against any accused officer inviting his explanation if any and the 2nd respondent has to examine the explanation and if he satisfies the explanation, he shall drop the charges or else he should appoint a enquiry officer to conduct enquiry as per the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of APCCA Rules. In the present case, the petitioner working in 3rd respondent corporation. The 2nd respondent appointed the 4th respondent as an enquiry officer in Roc.No.7999/08/C1, dtd. 6/10/2008 to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner. Later, the enquiry officer has issued a charge memo to the petitioner vide Roc.No.7999/2008/C1, dtd. 30/1/2010 framing charges as the petitioner failed to submit annual property returns from the date of his joining into service i.e., 30/12/1985 to till 27/6/2007 to the competent authority and violated Rule 9(7) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the petitioner failed to obtain previous sanction or intimation to the competent authority while purchasing the immovable properties in his name and in the name of his mother and failed to obtain previous sanction or intimation to the competent authority and violated Rule 9(1) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner has submitted explanation on 6/2/2010 denying the charges made against him. The enquiry officer without conducting enquiry, submitted report on 3/10/2012 holding that the charges are held proved against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent being disciplinary authority failed to issue show cause notice along with alleged enquiry report dtd. 3/10/2012 asking explanation of the petitioner on the report of the 4th respondent. Further, the 2nd respondent has abdicated his power to 1st respondent, who is appellate authority and the 1st respondent has encroached into the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent and issued punishment vide G.O.Rt.No.477, MA & UD (Vig.III-1) Department, dtd. 31/7/2019 imposing a punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. Further, the 3rd respondent has issued orders vide Roc.No.7999/08/C1, dtd. 16/10/2019 implementing the punishment orders of the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) The 3rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the petitioner submitted explanation to the 4th respondent on 6/2/2010. The charge memo and the explanation of the petitioner were furnished to the 2nd respondent, as per the directions of the 1st respondent along with necessary documents vide Letter Roc.No.799/2008/C1, dtd. 26/10/2012. It is further stated that the 4th respondent has conducted personal enquiry on 6/2/2010 and submitted his enquiry report to 3rd respondent on 3/10/2010. The 1st respondent authorized the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry and to submit enquiry report through the 2nd respondent. Hence, the allegation of the 1st respondent has encroached into jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent and issued punishment vide G.O.Rt.No.477, MA & UD (Vig.III-1) Department, dtd. 31/7/2019 is incorrect. It is further stated that the procedure adopted in issuing charge memo and forwarding his explanation to the 1st respondent, who is the disciplinary authority and imposition of punishment by the 1st respondent are all in accordance with the rules framed under A.P.C.S.(CCA) Rules, 1991.