RALLAPALLI SURYANARAYANA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of an order in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to memorandum dated 24th August, 1962 bearing No. Establishment IV (I) 230/58 on the file of the Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad and the confirming order dated 21st May, 1963 passed by the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department in memo. No. 43o8/Agri. V (2) 62-6 and to quash the same. The petitioner joined service as an Agricultural Assistant, Amalapuram on 22nd June, 1955 and thereafter he was transferred to Srikakulam District where he took up charge as the Additional Agricultural Demonstrator at Hiramandalam. The District Agricultural Officer, Srikakulam in his surprise inspection in May 1958 found on actual verification that there was a deficit of 56 bags of paddy seeds of which 23 bags were alleged to have been recovered from one A. Venkatesam. As a result of this inspection, the District Agricultural Officer stated that the petitioner is held responsible and took a memo, in writing from the petitioner to the following effect: "As I am found to be responsible for the loss of 32 bags of paddy seeds besides those recovered from Sri A. Venkatesu I agreed to pay the amount in the stipulated time. (Sd.) R. Suryanarayana 9-5-58 A.D.'

(2.) Subsequently, the District Agricultural Officer took some statements from certain third parties without the knowledge of the petitioner and on the basis of the said statements, himself framed a charge memo, dated 24th May, 1958 setting out seven charges, all relating to the shortage of stocks said to have been illicitly removed by the petitioner with the connivance of the servants and sold to third parties without accounting for the price of the same. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation in addition to a questionnaire sent to him to be filled up and submitted by him. Thereafter, the enquiry was posted from time to time and while the petitioner was making request for copies of the statements of persons recorded by the District Agricultural Officer on the basis of which the charges were framed, the said requests were turned down on the ground that the documents were ' confidential.' The petitioner's request for his having the assistance of a lawyer was also rejected. His request for an adjournment of the hearing of the enquiry on the ground of ill-health was also refused. A report was submitted ex parte without any witnesses and without any enquiry but merely on the basis of the statements already taken from the third parties. After the District Agricultural Officer submitted his minutes dated 3rd September, 1958 in which he gave his findings to the effect that the charges were proved against the petitioner, the petitioner received a memo, from the Director of Agriculture dated 11th January, 1961 practically incorporating the result of the enquiry conducted by the District Agricultural Officer and the findings arrived at by him in his report dated 3rd September, 1958. In his second explanation also, the petitioner reiterated the self-same grievances that he had no reasonable opportunity during the enquiry and that there should be a fresh enquiry in the interest of justice. Ultimately, the Director of Agriculture passed an order on 24th August, 1962 terminating the services of the petitioner which was received by the petitioner on 14th September, 1962. The petitioner handed over charge on 15th September, 1962 and his appeal against the order of dismissal was dismissed by the Government on 21st May, 1963 merely stating that the appeal is rejected. Hence the petitioner filed this writ petition to quash the order terminating his services.

(3.) Sri K. B. Krishna Murthy, the learned Advocate for the petitioner raised the following grounds in support of this petition: