DASARI NAGARAJU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common order.

(2.) Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.19438 of 2022 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that, while the petitioner was working as Assistant Director of Mines & Geology for Srikakulam, he executed a lease deed acting on behalf of the Government dtd. 23/2/2004 in favour of M/s Trimex Industries Ltd. After long lapse of time, certain allegations were made by the 2nd respondent in his vigilance report No.17(C.No.888/V&E/NR/2014), dtd. 11/3/2016 stating that the petitioner has submitted an explanation that the District Collector, Srikakulam has granted revenue clearance for 10 Sq.KMs for prospecting license. The same area was granted for mining lease in favour of M/s Trimex Industries Ltd., and thus the same NOC holds good and also stated that precautionary measures taken during the execution of lease deed duly incorporating all the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.31 of Industries & Commerce, dtd. 6/2/2004, and therefore, there is no fault on the petitioner's side. But the said explanation was not accepted by merely stating that the same is not tenable. In the said report, it was also stated that Clause (e) contains findings. A close perusal of the same shows that at serial No.1 that an allegation has been made against the petitioner that he has executed the lease before obtaining the clearance from Revenue, Forest Department and Patta holders against the conditions of G.O.Ms.No.31, dtd. 6/2/2004 without furnishing any material particulars. At Clause No.5 it is stated that the official of Mines & Geology Department had allowed mining operations and issued transmit permissions for transportation. Challenging the said report dtd. 11/3/2016 the petitioner filed WP No.44571 of 2018 before this Court and the same was disposed of and directed the respondents No.2 and 4 to reconsider the report dtd. 11/3/2016 in the light of the subsequent report of the District Collector, dtd. 17/11/2018, the District Collector had stated that Ac 387.72 cents of Vatsavalasa village of Gara Mandal, Srikaulam is not a revenue land and it belongs to Forest Department. Pursuant to the said directions of this Court, the 2nd respondent has submitted a fresh report dtd. 21/3/2019. Basing on the above report dtd. 21/3/2019 the 3rd respondent issued proceedings Lr.No.18314/E1/1984 dtd. 13/12/2019 vide letter addressed to the Accountant General, who is 4th respondent herein stating that the Government has sanctioned provisional pension 75% vide G.O.Rt.No.318 dtd. 26/11/2019 under Rule 52(1)(a)&(b) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980.