Telangana High Court
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... vs D. Mallikarjuna Rao, on 14 July, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 26996 OF 2013
ORDER:( Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for brevity 'the Tribunal') passed in O.A.No.12056 of 2009 dt.14-03-2013 and quash the same as being perverse and contrary to law.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners.
3. It has been contended by the petitioners that the 1st respondent is a retired Superintendent Engineer and he has retired from service on 31-10-2002. While 1st respondent was discharging his duties, during the month of June 2002 which is prior to his retirement, he has counter signed on Experience Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer and thereby huge losses was caused to AKS,J 2 W.P.No.26996 of 2013 the State Government and the disciplinary proceedings continued even after retirement and a charge memo dated 23-01-2004 was issued to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has submitted his explanation on 17-04-2004.
4. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the 1st respondent, the State has referred the case to the Commissioner of Inquiries vide G.O.Rt.No.1424, dated 26-10-2006. The Commissioner of Inquiries has submitted a detailed report holding that the charge leveled against the respondent as proved. Based upon the Inquiry officer's report, the petitioners have imposed a punishment of 10% cut in pension permanently vide G.O.Rt.No.1565, dated 22-09-2009.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has filed O.A No.12056 of 2009 before Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 14-03-2013 was pleased to set aside the punishment imposed by the petitioners without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.
6. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the state has imposed a punishment of 10% cut in AKS,J 3 W.P.No.26996 of 2013 pension of the 1st respondent for the proven misconduct in the enquiry and the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the punishment. Therefore appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A No.12056 of 2009 dated 14-03-2013.
7. This Court having considered the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for the petitioners is of the considered view that the Tribunal has interfered with the punishment with an observation that the petitioners could not establish the misconduct of the respondent in the enquiry. The Tribunal allowed the O.A with the following observations:
The learned Government Pleader submitted that the applicant countersigned the Experience Certificate, without verification by the subordinate staff. It is not the contention of the respondents that the applicant is not the competent authority to issue the Experience Certificate. It is not the case of the respondents that any false information was furnished by the applicant. It is also not the contention of the respondent that , on account of issuing the Experience Certificate, to M/s Swapna Constructions without verification, resulted in any loss to the Government or delay in execution of the work or whether there is any fall in standard than the standard AKS,J 4 W.P.No.26996 of 2013 prescribed under the agreement with the contractor. If any employee or officer commits an irregularity, it would result in some consequence. But in the present case, there is no consequence on account of the Experience Certificate countersigned by the applicant. It is not the contention of the respondents that the contractor does not have the experience. It is also not the contention of the respondents that it is a false certificate. The Press Note appears to be that , some irregularities have occurred in the office of the Commissioner of Tenders, while accepting the tenders, with which the applicant has no concern.
After going through the entire material and after going through the record and in the light of the submissions made by the Presenting Officer to the Enquiry Officer, I am of the view that he respondents failed to establish the misconduct on the part of the applicant which resulted in no consequence. I am therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned Proceedings issued in G.O.Rt. No. 1565, I & CAD Department, dated 22-9-2009 by the 1st Respondent.
In the result, this O.A.,is allowed and the impugned order issued in G.O.Rt.No.1565, I & CAD Department, dated 22-09-2009, issued by the 1st respondent, imposing the penalty of 10% cut in the pension against the applicant permanently is set aside. The Respondents are directed to release the balance of pension payable to the applicant, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. V.M.A., is dismissed. No order as to costs.
AKS,J 5 W.P.No.26996 of 2013
8. Further, no charge is directly leveled against the 1st respondent. The allegation is that he has counter signed on the experience certificate and consequently the works which were awarded to M/s Swapna Constructions has executed the works belatedly and the Tribunal also held that there is no consequence attributed to the 1st respondent as to how the petitioners have suffered loss just because the 1st respondent has counter signed the experience certificate to M/s Swapna Constructions. The allegation is only about irregularities in the procedure but the 1st respondent was not directly involved in causing any loss to the State Government. On that ground, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A in favour of the 1st respondent.
9. A perusal of the record further discloses that the 1st respondent is aged about 80 years as on today and on this count also, this court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A in favor of the 1st respondent as the Tribunal has given cogent reasons while allowing the O.A., Therefore, the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this Court.
AKS,J 6 W.P.No.26996 of 2013
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
11. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Dt.14.07.2022 Psw/kvr