G. NARAYANA REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

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 joined as V.R.O. in the year 2008 and at present working as VRO at Gadigarevula village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool district. While the petitioner was working as VRO at Thamadapalli Cluster, Banaganapalle Mandal, allegation was made against the petitioner that one Putta Balaramudu, S/o. Ramudu, resident of Rallakothuru village of Banaganapalli Mandal committed suicide by self immolation by pouring kerosene infront of Tahsildar office, Banaganapalli on 13/7/2015 at 05:00 P.M., and the petitioner had acted in a lackadaisical manner in resolving the grievance of the said Putta Balaramudu, even though he approached the petitioner very often, which led to agony and forced him to take drastic step of self immolation by pouring kerosene and attempted to suicide in front of Tahsildar office and has done gross negligence in discharging his legitimate duty. Basing on the preliminary enquiry report of the 5th respondent vide Rc.A/1.Spl/2015, dtd. 13/7/2015, the 3rd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No.A4/3111/VRO/2015, dtd. 14/7/2015 and appointed the 4th respondent as Enquiry Officer to probe the issue. An enquiry report dtd. 8/5/2017 has been submitted by the 4th respondent recommending a disciplinary action is required to be initiated against the petitioner by framing charges and also may be reinstated the petitioner in to duty as he has been under suspension two years and posted him to a distant non-local position pending disciplinary action. After that, the petitioner has been re-instated and joined as VRO, Gadigarevula Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool district. Basing on the report of the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent vide his file No.RevASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)-COLLKRNL, dtd. 19/10/2017 issued the articles of charges against the petitioner. In response to the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation dtd. 9/11/2017 denying the allegations levelled against him. However, the 3rd respondent without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner ordered a major penalty vide Rev-ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)-COLLKRNL, dtd. 4/4/2018, withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect as per Rule 9(vi) of A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent without considering the factual aspect dismissed the appeal vide CCLA's Ref.No.VSII(3)/491/2018, dtd. 19/7/2019, holding that the guilt of the petitioner has been clearly established beyond doubt. 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 as per the enquiry officer's report, the petitioner has been revoked the said order of suspension subject to disciplinary case pending vide Rev-ASECOMIS(OP)/56/2017-JA(A4)- COLLKRNL, dtd. 17/6/2017 and further posted as VRO, Gadigarevula Village of Gadivemula Mandal. Thereafter, basing on the 4th respondent's report, the article of charges was framed against the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 9/11/2017. After careful examination of the findings of the enquiry officer and explanation of the charged officer, the 3rd respondent has imposed major penalty by withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect as per Rule 9(vi) of A.P.C.S (CC&A) Rules, 1991. Further, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent and the same was dismissed vide CCLA's Ref.No.VSII(3)/491/2018, dtd. 19/7/2019.