Telangana High Court
M.Janaki Ram vs The Principal Chief Conservator Of ... on 28 March, 2022
Author: A.Rajasheker Reddy
Bench: A.Rajasheker Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
W.P.NO.26573 OF 2010
O R D E R (Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy)
The petitioner herein is the charged employee. Initially the petitioner was appointed as Forester in the Forest Department on 20.03.1985 and subsequently promoted as Forest Range Officer on 5.11.1993. He was posted to District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Nizamabad District on 21.11.1996 to work on deputation. While he was on deputation, certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner and others with regard to misappropriation of funds in Nizamabad District under Integrated Wasteland Development Programme (IWDP). In pursuance of the said allegations, the Central Government withheld the funds allotted to Rural Development Department. The Government constituted a State Level Three Men Committee and the said committee submitted enquiry report on IWDP - I and II Works of Nizamabad District dated 18.12.1999 holding that the allegations levelled were false and not based on reality. Based on the said report, the Commissioner, Rural Development, Government of the then Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad vide Lr.No.4/IWDP/99 dated 27.01.2000 requested the Joint Secretary, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi to release the funds to DRDA Nizamabad. The Commissioner, Rural Development vide Lr.No.4/IWDP/99 dated 31.12.2000 also requested the Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development, the then Government of A.P., Hyderabad to drop the further action in the matter. The case of the petitioner is that in spite of all the above proceedings, the 1st respondent - the then Government of Andhra 2 Pradesh, Forest Department, represented by its Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, vide Ref.No.31268/2001/PDT-3 dated 31.05.2008 initiated departmental proceedings under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and framed following charges against the petitioner:
"That Sri M.Janakiram s/o Venkataswamy joined Government Service on 26.03.1985 and while functioning as Forest Range Officer, D.R.D.A. Nizamabad District from 21.11.1996 to 14.07.2000 has committed grave misconduct inasmuch as:
1. The A.O. failed to account for the amount received by him by submitting Utilization Certificates.
2. He failed to obtain the Utilization Certificates and to peruse the vouchers submitted by the Sectoral Officers on many occasions before issuing the cheques worth more than one lakh in a single day.
3. He failed to counter sign the vouchers submitted by the sectoral officers;
4. The A.O. fabricated records as if the work was taken up but the ground reality was contrary and some of the villages clearly stated that no work was taken up by the DRDA or any other officials of Nizamabad District under IWDP-I;
5. The A.O. failed to maintain relevant records properly.
6. He failed to peruse the vouchers where in the sectoral officer did not mention the name of beneficiaries and even the name of witnesses in the relevant columns of the vouchers before issuing cheques for further expenses.
7. He failed to account for the amount for which Utilization Certificates were not furnished."
2. Assailing the above charge memo dated 31.05.2008, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6718 of 2008 on the file of the then Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad. Vide order dated 08.10.2010, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner worked on deputation in DRDA during the period from 1996 to 2000 and in the light of the allegations of misappropriation of funds in Nizamabad District under IWDP against the petitioners and others, Government have appointed a State Level Three Men Committee, which has submitted a report dated 18.12.1999 categorically holding that the allegations levelled were false and baseless, and accordingly the Commissioner has also addressed 3 letters to the Central Government for release of funds, and they were also released, and he also addressed letter to the State Government for dropping of further proceedings, but in spite of the same, issuing the charge memo is illegal and arbitrary.
4. Learned counsel submits that under Rule 30(1) of APCS CCA Rules, the borrowing department ie., DRDA can initiate departmental proceedings or it can request the disciplinary authority / lending authority to initiate departmental proceedings, and based on such request, the disciplinary authority can initiate departmental proceedings. But in the present case, vide report dated 18.12.1999, the allegations were found to be false and baseless and the borrowing department never requested the disciplinary authority / lending authority to initiate departmental proceedings. But on the contrary, the disciplinary authority initiated proceedings, as such the same is illegal and arbitrary.
5. He submits that the allegations are during the period from 1993- 94 to 1997-98, and the petitioner worked during the period from 1996 to 2000. In the year 1999 itself the State Level Three Men Committee submitted report on 18.12.1999 holding that the allegations are false and baseless, and in the year 2000 Commissioner also addressed letter to the Government for dropping of further proceedings with regard to allegations of misappropriation, but the impugned charge memo is issued after a period of eight years, that too, for the allegations while the petitioner was working on deputation and which allegations were found to be false and baseless. Therefore, it is clear that the present charge memo is issued after a period of eight years after filing of the report on 18.12.1999. The respondents have not explained this inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo. The Apex 4 Court in the decisions reported in P.V.MAHADEVAN v. MD. T.N. HOUSING BOARD1 held that in the absence of convincing explanation for initiating departmental enquiry after an inordinate delay of ten years, in that case, and permitting to proceed with such an enquiry, would be very prejudicial to the employee concerned.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the respondents is that based on the report of Anti Corruption Bureau, the charges have been framed. He submits that these allegations pertain to when the petitioner was working on deputation with DRDA, which were found by Three Men Committee as false and baseless.
7. That similar charge memos were issued to the two other employees viz., 1. Mr. Qudrath Mohiuddin, Assistant Conservator of Forests and
2. Mr. M.Prem Sagar, Forest Range Officer. These employees have approached the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.5499 of 2009 dated 06.03.2013 and 11700 of 2009 dated 08.02.2013 and the Tribunal has set aside the impugned charge memo on the ground of delay, and the Government has implemented the orders of the Tribunal by issuing G.O.Rt.No.5, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (For.III) Department dated 09.01.2018 and G.O.Rt.No.6, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (For.III) Department dated 09.01.2018, but the petitioner has been discriminated.
8. That the Tribunal without considering the above aspects in proper perspective, rejected the claim of the petitioner, and the same is illegal and arbitrary. It is further submitted that because of the pendency of the charge memo, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for 1 (2005)6 SCC 636 5 promotion and that the juniors to the petitioners were promoted. Hence the impugned charge memo and also the order of the Tribunal may be set aside and the petitioner may be granted all consequential benefits.
9. Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned Government Pleader for Services - I while not disputing the facts with regard to submitting of the report by the Three Men Committee dated 18.12.1999 and the Commissioner addressing letters to the Central Government accepting the report of the Three Men Committee and also seeking for release of funds, and also addressing letter to the State Government for dropping of charges and also exoneration of two other employees who were similarly situated, however, submits that based on the material obtained from the Director General Anti Corruption Bureau, the impugned charge memo has been issued and hence no exception can be taken. He further submits that subsequently vide Proc.No.4979/2016/D & A-2 dated 09.02.2022 petitioner has been imposed with punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, besides recovery of the amount.
10. Here it is to be noticed that the punishment imposed pertain to different charge and it does not relate to the allegations against the petitioner in the impugned charge memo dated 31.05.2008.
11. Learned Government Pleader with the above averments sought to dismiss the writ petition.
12. From the above averments the undisputed facts are that the petitioner was deputed during the period from 21.11.1996 to 14.07.2000 to work in DRDA Nizamabad and the allegations pertain to misappropriation of 6 the funds sanctioned by the Central Government for IWDP project during the period from 1993-94 to 1997-98, against the petitioner and others. As noted above, the Three Men Committee vide report dated 18.12.1999 found that all the allegations levelled in the press as well as by other are false and not based on reality.
13. The Commissioner, Rural Development, the then Government of A.P., Hyderabad, vide Lr.No.4/IWDP/99 dated 27.1.2000 addressed to the Joint Secretary, Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi, stated that the Additional Commissioner, D.P.A.P, Wages, Employment, Office of the Commissioner, Rural Development, A.P., Hyderabad has also inspected some of the works carried out in Nizamabad District on 22.01.2000, and that they agree with the report submitted by the Special Team and that the allegations levelled in the press as well as by others are found baseless, and accordingly requested the Government of India to release the funds to DRDA Nizamabad under IWDP immediately. And it is stated that the funds have also been released.
14. The Commissioner, Rural Development vide Lr.No.4/IWDP/99 dated 31.12.2000 addressed to the Principal Secretary to Government, Rural Development also stated that the allegations levelled in the press are found to be false and baseless, and submitted that the further action in this regard may be dropped. But however, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner and others and framed the Article of Charge vide proceedings in Ref.No.31268/2001/PXT-3 dated 31.05.2008.
15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is mainly on the ground of delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings. 7
16. As already noted above, the petitioner worked during the period from 1996 to 2000 in the DRDA Department on Deputation, and the allegations pertain to the execution of work during the period from 1993-94 to 1997-98. The allegations with regard to misappropriation were made on 02.01.1999, and the Special Team submitted the report on 18.12.1999 and the same was also accepted by the State Government. But the impugned charge memo is dated 31.05.2008 i.e., it was issued after a period of about eight years. No proper explanation is forthcoming from the Department for initiating the charge memo after a period of about eight years. With regard to delay, the Apex Court in P.V.MAHADEVAN v. MD. T.N. HOUSING BOARD ( 1 supra), considering the aspect of inordinate delay of 10 years in the said case, and in the absence of proper explanation for initiating departmental enquiry after such a long distance of time, held that allowing respondent therein to proceed further with departmental proceedings at this distance of time, would be very prejudicial to appellant, and accordingly quashed the departmental enquiry. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:
"11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interest of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer."
17. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations pertain to the period while the petitioner was working in the borrowing department i.e., the DRDA and the borrowing department 8 never made any request to the disciplinary authority / lending department to initiate departmental enquiry against the petitioner and moreover, as stated above, the Special Team submitted a report dated 18.12.1999 stating that the allegations are false and baseless and the same was also accepted by the State Government and the Central Government released funds for completion of IWDP works. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rule 30(1) and (2) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, which reads as follows:
Rule 30: Provisions regarding officers lent to Government of India, etc. (1) Where the services of Government servant are lent by one department to another department or to Government of India or the Government of another State (hereinafter in this rule referred to as 'the borrowing authority'), the borrowing authority shall have the powers of appointing authority for the purpose of placing the government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceedings against him.
Provided that the borrowing authority shall forthwith inform the authority which lent the services of the Government servant (hereinafter in the rule referred to as 'lending authority') of the circumstances leading to the order of suspension of such Government servant or the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings as the case may be.
(2) In the light of the findings in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the Government servant:
i) If the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (v) of Rule 9 or in Rule 10, should be imposed on the Government servant, it may make such orders as it deem necessary;
ii) If the borrowing authority is of the opinion that the penalty specified in clause (vi) of Rule 9 should be imposed on Government servant, it may pass such orders as it may deem necessary, duly following the procedure prescribed in Rule 20.
Provided that the borrowing authority shall inform the lending authority which lent the services of the government servant the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty specified in clause (vi) of Rule 9.
Provided further that if the borrowing authority is the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (vii) to (x) of Rule 9 should be imposed on such Government servant, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the lending authority and transmit to it the proceedings of the enquiry and thereupon, pass such orders thereon as it may deem necessary or if it is not disciplinary authority, submit the case to the disciplinary authority which shall pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary.
18. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that it deals with the procedure for placing a government servant under suspension and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him when he is working under 9 borrowing authority. Under this provision, the borrowing authority will have the powers of the appointing authority, and in case any penalty is to be imposed, the borrowing can impose, or it can replace the services of such delinquent employee at the disposal of the lending department, which shall pass orders. The above procedure is applicable only when the employee is levelled with any allegations and disciplinary proceedings are contemplated to be issued while on deputation. In the present case, the petitioner was not found guilty of any charge during the period under deputation, and the Three Men Committee vide report dated 18.12.1999 found the allegations to be false and baseless, and the borrowing department never made any request for initiating departmental proceedings. But the disciplinary authority, making the allegations when the petitioner was working on deputation with DRDA, issued the charge memo. This is contrary to the above Rule, and on this ground also, the impugned charge memo cannot be sustained.
19. In the present case, it is to be seen that along with the petitioner two more officers of Forest Department viz., Mr. Qudrath Mohiuddin, Assistant Conservator of Forests and Mr. Prem Sagar, Forest Range Officer, who worked on deputation in DRDA and they were also levelled with similar allegations, and as noted above, the Three Men Committee vide report dated 18.12.1999 found the allegations to be false and baseless. But, however, those two employees, after repatriation, were also charge-sheeted vide proceedings in Ref.No.31268/2001PXT -3 dated 31.05.2008, and the articles of charges are similar to that of the petitioner. They approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.Nos.1170 and 5499 of 2009, and vide orders dated 06.03.2013 and 08.02.2013, the Tribunal has set aside the said charge memo on the ground of delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings, and 10 the orders of the Tribunal was also implemented by the Government by issuing G.O.Rt.No.5, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (For.III) Department dated 09.01.2018 and G.O.Rt.No.6, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (For.III) Department dated 09.01.2018. But in the present case, the O.A. filed by the petitioner on identical issue, has been dismissed by the Tribunal.
20. The allegations against Qudrath Mohiuddin, the then Assistant Conservator of Forests, now retired while working at DRDA, are as under:
1) He failed to supervise the implementation of the work taken up under the programme;
2) The A.O. issued lakhs of rupees to the Forest Range Officers Sri M.Janakiram and Sri M.Premsage under his control without obtaining utilization certificates and without perusing the vouches submitted by the FROs;
3) He failed to inspect the works or record maintained by DROs;
4) Further he did not even countersign many of the vouchers submitted by the Sectoral officers (FROs). He without perusing the vouches, wherein the sectoral offices did not write the name of the beneficiary and the names of witnesses in the relevant columns of the vouchers has issued cheques for further expenses.
5) He failed to account for the amount for which utilization certificates were not furnished;
6) He failed to give the correct information from where he and his subordinates have collected the plants and also failed to give information about the villages which received the plants.
21. As already noted above, the allegations against the petitioner and the above charged officer are similar and interconnected, and pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, Government vide G.O.Rt.No.5 dated 09.01.2018 dropped the proceedings, and similar is the case with one M.Premsagar, but in the case of the petitioner, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A., and charges are being continued, which in the considered opinion of the court, amounts to discrimination, and also violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11
22. The Apex Court in the decision reported in MAN SINGH vs. STATE OF HARYANA2 , considering similar facts and circumstances, held as under:
"19. We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quash-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State Action. It was extended to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equal is to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of 'fair play' and reasonableness. We have, therefore, examined the case of the appellant in the light of the established doctrine of equality and fair play. The principle is the same, namely, that there should be no discrimination between the appellant and HC Vijay Pal as regard the criteria of punishment of similar nature in departmental proceedings. The appellant and HC Vijay Pal were both similarly situated, in fact HC Vijay Pal was the real culprit who, besides departmental proceedings, was an accused in the excise case filed against him by the Excise Staff of Andhra Pradesh for violating the Excise Prohibition Orders operating in the State. The appellate authority exonerated HC Vijay Pal mainly on the ground of his acquittal by the criminal court in the Excise case and after exoneration, he has been promoted to the higher post, whereas the appeal and the revision filed by the appellant against the order of punishment have been rejected on technical ground that he has not exercised proper and effective control over HC Vijay Pal at the time of commission of the Excise offence by him in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The order of the disciplinary authority would reveal that for the last about three decades the appellant has served the Police Department of Haryana in different capacity with unblemished record of service.
20. In the backdrop of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the appellant for exhibiting slackness in the discharge of duties during his visit to Hyderabad when HC Vijay Pal was found involved in Excise offence, as also the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities confirming the said order are unfair, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and also against the doctrine of equality. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the precise legal questions raised by the appellant before it and dismissed the Second Appeal by unreasoned judgment. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, confirming the judgments and decrees of the first appellate court and that of the trial court is not sustainable. The appellant deserves to be treated equally in the matter of departmental punishment initiated against him for the acts of omissions and commissions vis-à-vis HC Vijay Pal, the driver of the vehicle."
23. In view of the above judgment, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned proceedings dated 31.05.2008 and the order of the Tribunal, are set aside and the writ petition is accordingly allowed, and the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits. 2 (2008)12 SCC 331 12
24. Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
--------------------------------------------
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
------------------------------------------------
SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU,J DATE:28--03--2022 AVS