A.MAHIPAL REDDY Vs. SPL.CHIFESECRETARY , HOUSING DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner questions the order dtd. 18/1/2017 of the 2nd respondent whereby and whereunder he was dismissed from service with immediate effect together with recovery of Rs.10,63,180.00 for the irregularities committed by him in implementation of Indiramma Housing Programme at Basheerbad (M) of Ranga Reddy District.

(2.) The crisp case of petitioner is that he was issued charge memo dtd. 24/9/2010 alleging that he released payment of Rs.6,58,210.00 to 30 beneficiaries towards old houses; released payment of Rs.10,74,620.00 to 62 beneficiaries without grounding the construction of houses which is in violation of Rule 20(4) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the Rules'). It is stated, the charge memo had not mentioned the names of proposed witnesses. He submitted representation dtd. 21/12/2010 to the 5th respondent to furnish the details of cases, such as names of beneficiaries, village and the amount paid to them. The 5th respondent furnished certain information. He submitted written defense statement on 6/6/2011 to the 3rd respondent clearly stating the payments made, details of stages of houses, etcetera. According to petitioner, the Enquiry Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 20(10)(a) of the Rules, as per which, oral and documentary evidence by which articles of charges are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of disciplinary authority. Based on such a report, the 3rd respondent vide Memo dtd. 17/5/2012 for which, petitioner submitted explanation on 6/6/2012 stating that on the instructions and report of MHOs. only, he generated payment release orders; all the payments were transferred to the individual beneficiaries' accounts and no beneficiary disputed acknowledgment of payment, hence, fixing responsibility on him is not correct.

(3.) This Court by order dtd. 22/2/2017, while directing learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation to get instructions on the issue whether door to door enquiry as recorded in the report of the Enquiry Officer was conducted with prior notice to petitioner and in his presence, granted stay of recovery of the amount mentioned in the proceedings. The said order was extended thereafter until further orders.