STATE OF A P Vs. G RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Govt. Pleadaer for Services II and Sri J.R. Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the respondent - applicant and at their request the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) This writ petition is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh to quash the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4994 of 2005 dated 28.10.2005. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent - applicant was initially appointed as a Junior Crafts Instructor on 26.12.1977 at the Industrial Training Institute, Vikarabad. He was later promoted as a Senior Instructor and thereafter selected as an Asst. Motor Vehicles Inspector in the Transport Department of the Government of A.P. He was promoted as a Motor Vehicles Inspector on 18.2.1993. While he was working as a Motor Vehicles Inspector, at Armoor in Nizamabad District, the Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B) registered a case against him in Cr.No.3/ACB-NZB/95 under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the ground that the respondent - applicant was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. This case was registered pursuant to a search conducted at the respondent-applicant's residence, office premises, and at other places. Disciplinary action was initiated and the matter was entrusted, to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, vide memo dated 20.5.1997. The Tribunal submitted its report on 20.5.1998 holding that the respondent was in possession of disproportionate assets of Rs.2,79,546/-. A copy of the report was furnished to the respondent, vide proceedings dated 25.6.1998, and he was called upon to submit his representation, if any, on the findings of the Tribunal. The respondent - applicant submitted his representation dated 23.7.1998. The disciplinary authority, after considering the evidence on record including the representation submitted by the respondent - applicant, imposed on him the punishment of dismissal from service, vide G.O.Ms.No.72 dated 7.5.2003. The appeal preferred by the respondent-applicant was rejected, vide Memo dated 29.6.2005. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent-applicant filed O.A. 4994 of 2005 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal, in its order dated 28.10.2005, took note of the fact that the 1st petitioner herein had sought advice of the law Department in respect of the explanation given by the respondent-applicant to the report of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The Tribunal held that, while the competent authority (1st petitioner) had taken a decision to drop the charges against the respondent- applicant, before passing the order, the matter was referred to the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance Commission had differed with the decision of the competent authority and had advised the Government to dismiss the respondent - applicant from service, thereupon the 1st petitioner had passed the order dismissing the respondent - applicant from service and that the order of dismissal was issued by the 1st petitioner based solely on the advice of the Vigilance Commission.

(3.) The Tribunal called for the records and, on perusal thereof, noticed that the disciplinary authority, on the opinion given by the law department, had decided to drop the charges and thereafter the matter was referred to the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance Commission, vide letter dated 11.2.2003, had informed that, since G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 4.1.1999, applied to the case of the respondent-applicant, the major penalty of dismissal from service should be imposed. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order of punishment of dismissal from service was passed only in view of the letter of the Vigilance Commission dated 11.2.2003. The Tribunal held that G.O.Ms.No.2 dated 4.1.1999 was not applicable since it related to cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery and outraging the modesty of women etc., but the case of the applicant related to disproportionate assets. The Tribunal was also of the view that the recommendation of the Vigilance Commission was not proper as it related to a G.O. which did not apply to the facts and circumstances of the respondent - applicant's case and since the impugned order was based on the recommendations of the Vigilance Commission, the disciplinary authority had committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order of punishment. The Tribunal relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mubashir Hussain v. Commissioner of Central Excise III, Hyderabad, 2004 (7) ALT 289 (DB) and after examining the records, held that the disciplinary authority had not applied its mind independently to the case of the respondent-applicant and it had only acted on the recommendations of the Vigilance Commission. The Tribunal held that the order of punishment was inflicted only at the instance of the Vigilance Commission and such abdication of power by the disciplinary authority could not be countenanced. The Tribunal observed that, while it may be one thing to say that the disciplinary authority had taken into consideration the advice of the Vigilance Commission, while issuing the order of punishment on the basis of the materials placed before it and upon application of its own mind, it was another thing to say that it had abdicated its statutory powers to the Vigilance Commission and had passed the order of punishment, although, in its opinion, no punishment should be imposed on the delinquent officer. The Tribunal held that the instant case was a glaring example where the disciplinary authority had abdicated its powers to the Vigilance Commission and had acted in furtherance of the advice of the Vigilance Commission and, since the independent decision taken by the disciplinary authority was to drop the charges, the disciplinary authority must be held to have committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order.