Telangana High Court
Spl. Chief Secretary, Planning Dept., ... vs Smt. B. Susheela, Khammam Dist on 28 July, 2023
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
W.P.Nos. 18949 & 26369 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.
2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. For the sake convenience, the facts in W.P.No.26369 of 2017 are hereunder discussed.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent was working as Assistant Statistical Officer and she was assigned the work of "food for work" on rice release orders. The Mandal Level Storage Point is situated at 15 KMs away from the Mandal Head Quarters. The Mandal 2 Revenue Officer was required to issue release orders which are being forwarded to the MLS Point and from there, the stocks would be released. Whenever the Mandal Revenue Officer is not available, the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer or other supervisory staff including the respondent were required to put their initials in the release orders for proper release of the stocks to the customers. On enquiry, it was found that large scale irregularities have been committed by the respondent and other officials i.e., M.R.O, Deputy M.R.O, Assistant Grade-II, while releasing the stocks from the Mandal Level Storage Point. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all the officers, who were involved in issuing the release the orders as heavy loss was caused to the State Government. Hence, the petitioners have placed the respondent under suspension vide proceedings dated 3 10.05.2002 pending enquiry and later, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her by issuing a charge memo on 17.06.2002 and common enquiry was conducted against all the officers. Consequent upon conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the respondent was reinstated into service on 06.10.2003 and Enquiry Officer's report was also furnished to her on 30.12.2003 and the respondent has also submitted her objections to the Enquiry Officer's report on 16.02.2004. Thereafter, the Chief Planning Officer, Khammam, has issued a Memo to the respondent on 05.11.2004 directing her to remit a sum of Rs.3,92,790/- being the proportionate loss suffered by the A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation and the said amount was directed to be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from February, 2005. After considering the objections raised in the Enquiry Officer's Report, the disciplinary authority has imposed 4 the punishment of dismissal against the respondent vide proceedings dated 05.03.2005 for the proven misconduct in the enquiry besides ordering recovery as was done earlier vide proceedings dated 05.11.2004. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the respondent has unsuccessfully preferred an appeal and revision and later challenging the orders of dismissal, she approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.5005 of 2007. Without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners, the Tribunal vide order dated 22.03.2016 set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service. Hence, the writ petition.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners had contended that every procedural aspect was followed before imposing the major punishment and every opportunity was given to 5 the respondent in the enquiry and the Tribunal has allowed the OA on the erroneous ground that the witnesses were not examined in the enquiry, whereas, the record discloses that the Enquiry Officer has examined all the witnesses and every opportunity was given to the respondent. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are contrary to the record and the same are liable to be set aside.
Learned Government Pleader for Services-I had further contended that if there are any procedural irregularities, the Tribunal ought to have pointed out the same and remanded the matter back to the authorities so as to enable the petitioners to rectify the said lacunae so that the petitioners would give another opportunity to the respondent and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Merely because certain witnesses were not examined, that does not mean that the respondent can be scot-free in 6 spite of huge loss caused to the State Government. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had contended that no opportunity was given in the enquiry and the witnesses, who are un-connected to the case, were examined. Leaned counsel has drawn our attention to the portion of the Enquiry Officer's report, where common enquiry was conducted against all the charged employees and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against four officials, out of which, three officials were scot-free, but when it comes to the respondent, a major penalty was imposed by ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.3,92,790/- being the proportionate loss caused to the State Government.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had further contended that the actual person who is releasing 7 the work order is Mandal Revenue Officer, and in his absence it is the duty of the Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer and the role of the respondent, who is the Assistant Statistical Officer, comes in last place. Learned counsel had further contended that very strangely, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer were scot-free and it is only the respondent, who was working as Assistant Statistical Officer, was made as a scapegoat. Learned counsel had further contended that very strangely, in the Enquiry Officer's report, it was stated that the respondent has failed to give a satisfactory explanation, which would mean that burden of proof rests on the Enquiry Officer and the presenting Officer to prove the alleged charge levelled against the respondent, but the burden is shifted to the respondent to explain the lacunas which were noted against her. If there was any material against the respondent, the same 8 should have been put against the respondent and then hold that the charge as "proved". But the respondent was asked to submit a satisfactory explanation with regard to certain issues. But, no witnesses were examined and no opportunity was given to the respondent. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of dismissal on the ground that other employees were scot-free and the enquiry was not properly conducted. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had further contended that the petitioners have also issued a Memo dated 05.11.2004 to the respondent directing to recover a sum of Rs.3,92,790/- being the proportionate loss caused to the A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation. As the respondent has submitted a representation contending that the punishment of proportionate 9 recovery of the amount is too harsh, the petitioners having bore grudge against the respondent, issued the order of dismissal. Learned counsel had further contended that the responsible officers like Mandal Revenue Officer, Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, Assistant Grade-III, were scot-free except ordering recovery of proportionate loss caused to the State Government. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the OA in favour of the respondent.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent had further contended that the alleged release orders are forged documents and the original release orders were stolen from the almyrah of the respondent and the respondent has specifically given a complaint to the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that release orders were stolen from the almyrah, but no action has been taken by the officials and 10 on this ground also, the Tribunal had come to the rescue of the respondent.
7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the enquiry was conducted against all the officials by the Commissioner of Enquiries and in the Enquiry Report submitted by the Commissioner of Enquiries, it is stated that the respondent failed to submit satisfactory explanation, which would mean that the Commissioner of Enquiries has thrown the entire burden on the respondent to submit satisfactory explanation. Instead of doing so, the Commissioner of Enquiries should have brought home the charge on the material available with him. Certain witnesses were also not examined by the Commissioner of Enquiries. In those set of circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the enquiry was not properly 11 conducted. The Tribunal has also taken into account the fact that higher officials were let off without any punishment except ordering recovery of proportionate amounts, whereas in case of the respondent, the authorities have imposed a major penalty of dismissal, which is not proper. However, the Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter back to the petitioners so as to enable them to impose appropriate punishment by taking into account the fact that other officials were let off with the penalty of recovery of proportionate amounts. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service.
8. At the fag end, learned counsel for the respondent had informed that the respondent has preferred appeal and the petitioners without assigning any reasons, have mechanically rejected the said appeal with a single line 12 order. Therefore, the petitioners must pass a detailed order after taking into consideration the fact that the other officials like Mandal Revenue Officer, Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer, and Assistant Grade-III were let off and they were directed to pay proportionate costs.
9. A perusal of the record further discloses that the Commissioner has issued a memo on 05.11.2004 directing the respondent to remit a sum of Rs.3,92,790/- being the proportionate loss suffered by the A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation and the said proceedings were never challenged by the respondent. Though in the dismissal order, there is a reference of recovery of the very same amount, since the petitioner has not specifically challenged the said Memo dated 05.11.2004, the same is upheld, which would mean that the respondent must pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioners.
13
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside that portion of the order passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioners to reinstate the respondent into service. We remand the matter back to the State so as to enable the State to re-examine the case of the respondent in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal and also the fact that other officials like Mandal Revenue Officer, Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer and Assistant Grade-III were let off with no punishment except ordering recovery of proportionate costs and examine the case on those grounds and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since the respondent has retired from service, the State Government shall re-examine the case of the respondent in terms of the observations made by this Court and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 14
11. In view of the said orders passed in W.P.No.26369 of 2017, no further orders need to be passed in W.P.No.18949 of 2017 and the same is dismissed without costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI ____________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date:28.07.2023 rkk