G S GEORGE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or direction calling for the records connected with G.O.Ms. No 638 dated 13-4-1964 as confirmed by the proceedings of the First respondent. Government of Andhra Pradesh, in Memo. No. 3081/U-64-5 dated 19-5-1965 and quash the same or pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and necessary.

(2.) The facts leading to this Writ Petition are the following: The petitioner is the Sub-Registrar in the Registration Department of Andhra Pradesh. Allegations of corruption and collection of amounts for National Savings Certificates and misappropriating those funds were made against him in a petition dated 22-6-1959 sent to the second respondent, the Inspector General of Registration. The Inspector General of Registration directed the District Registrar, West Godavari to conduct a preliminary enquiry and on the basis of the report submitted by the District Registrar, the Second respondent the Inspector General of Registration framed charges against the petitioner in proceeding No. 13493 dated 3-12-1959 Thereafter, a regular enquiry was conducted. 11 witnesses were examined for the prosecution and 4 witnesses were examined in defence by the petitioner. After issuing him a show cause notice, the Inspector General dismissed him from service and the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal passed by the Inspector General of Registration, to the Government and the Government in G.O.Ms. 2111--Revenue dated 13-12-1963 modified the punishment imposed by the Inspector General of Registration and directed the petitioner to approach the Inspector General for necessary orders. The Government converted the punishment of dismissal into one of reduction in pay by three stages for three years and asked the Inspector General of Registration to reinstate him in service. Accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated by the proceedings of the Inspector General of Registration dated 19-12-1963 informing him of the punishment imposed by the Government. Subsequently, the second respondent asked for a clarification of the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms. 2111 dated 13-12-1963. The clarification asked for by the second respondent was whether the reduction will or will not operate as to postponing the increments of the petitioner and there was also, no specified order regarding pay and allowances to be paid to the petitioner for the period of his absence and whether the period of absence should be treated as period spent on duty. The Government then Issued another G.O.Ms. 638 dated 13-4-1964, clarifying the points raised by the second respondent. The clarification is to the effect that the period from the date of dismissal of the petitioner to the date of reinstatement should be treated as leave to which he was eligible and the reduction of pay ordered in the previous G.O. 2111 Revenue dated 13-12-1963 will have the effect to postpone the future increments of the petitioner. It is this G.O. that is now challenged by the petitioner as enhancing the punishment ordered in the earlier G.O., G.O.Ms. 2111 dated 13-12-1963.

(3.) Mr. Kondapi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Government by way of clarification of G.O. Ms. 2111 cannot enhance the punishment as to affect his future increments and this is in violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording him an opportunity to defend himself. The learned counsel Mr. Kondapi argued that the evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer will not justify the findings of the Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the petitioner was originally dismissed and later the punishment modified by the Government, and even otherwise the order of the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 638 Revenue dated 13-4-1964 imposes a fresh punishment not contemplated under G.O. Miscellaneous 2111 and hence he was deprived of the constitutional protection guaranteed to him under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.