Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mr.I.Surendra, vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 August, 2019
Author: C.Praveen Kumar
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.21562 of 2011
ORDER:(per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice C.Praveen Kumar) The present writ petition came to be filed in the nature of public interest litigation, seeking the following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the above Writ Petition, the petitioner prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents 1, 3 and 4 in ordering for the enquiry into the affairs of the 2nd Respondent pursuant to the representation of the Petitioner dt.18-05-2011 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 38(2) and 39(b) of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents 1, 3 and 4 to order for an independent enquiry by appointing a enquiry committee and cause detailed enquiry into the affairs of the 2nd Respondent for correcting the irregularities committed by the erring officials and to rectify the same as well as to initiate appropriate penal proceedings against the responsible persons in accordance with law and further issue necessary directions to regulate the affairs of the 2nd Respondent to achieve the objects of the SVIMS Act and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
A reading of the contents of the writ affidavit would show that the petitioner alleges that the sixth respondent, during his tenure as Director of the second respondent University for the period from 19.11.1999 to 12.10.2009, involved in several irregularities, namely, mismanagement of 2 funds of the University, illegal promotions, irregular pay fixations etc. In the local audit conducted by the Accountant General of the State for the period from 2001-02 to 2008-09, several financial irregularities were pointed out by the Audit Department. According to the audit report, public funds of the second respondent University, to a tune of about Rs.11.00 crores, were misused. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation to respondents 1 to 5 on 18.05.2011, requesting them to conduct a detailed independent enquiry in relation to the alleged irregularities pointed out in the audit report, but no action has been taken thereon. Hence, this pro bono litigation.
At paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit, the petitioner detailed the irregularities allegedly committed by the sixth respondent, including those pointed out in the audit report, which resulted in financial burden upon the second respondent university, as indicated in a tabular form, which is extracted hereunder:
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Sl. Allegation Source Effect on the funds
No. of the second
respondent
1. The 6th Respondent has drawn i) Proceedings Burden of
Rs.7,46,257/-
an amount of Rs.7,46,257/- in dt.15-09-2000 the year 2000, towards ii) Proceedings pension which he is not dt.02-06-2009 entitled to. Though the iii) proceedings recovery was ordered and the dt.18-07-2009 same is not remitted so far. and item IV of the audit report
2. Irregular promotions, Proceedings Burden of regularizations and tampering dt.25-10-2008 Rs.1,05,41,561 of records. and relevant approximately proceedings of selection 3 committee and items III and V of audit report
3. Sanction of medical Audit report Burden of Rs.7 reimbursement against rules lakhs approximately
4. Procurement of ventilators in " Burden of excess Rs.6,29,25,274/-
5. Payment of penalties to " Burden of electricity department Rs.51,79,902.66/-
6. Irregularities in procurement " Burden of Rs.57.14 lakhs of medicines
7. Delay in procurement of " Burden of Rs.35 equipment and delay in lakhs approximately completion of works and improper cancellation of tenders
8. Admission of students in " Such an acts would excess of sanction of seats damage the and conducting courses reputation of the without prior approval SVIMS and would also draw inference to the effect that such admissions might be made for personal gains
9. Outstanding bills pending " Burden of Rs.1.96 from 1994-96 to 2007-08 crores
10. Loss of interest from bank due " Burden of Rs.12.84 to maintenance of current lakhs accounts instead of savings accounts
11. Payment of bills without " Bills worth sanction Rs.7,60,48,789/-
was passed during 2006-07 to 2009-10 without sanction of higher authority 4
12. Loss of rent " Three shops were kept vacant without giving on lease since 2007 and 2008. It appears in respect of shop No.1 there is stay of tender process from this Hon'ble Court. But however it appears serious efforts are not being made since 2007 to conclude the proceedings by bringing the facts to the notice of this Hon'ble Court.
Upon the directions of this Court, the second respondent filed an additional counter-affidavit, explaining the subsequent developments and action taken to clear the aforesaid audit objections. Insofar as the first objection is concerned, namely, the sixth respondent withdrawing an amount of Rs.7,46,257/- in the year 2000 towards pension to which he is not entitled to, it is stated that the said objection was raised in the audit conducted by the Accountant General of the State, on the ground that his appointment as Director of the SVIMS was on re-employment basis in terms of G.O.Ms.No.145 dated 16.10.2000 and as he had reached maximum pay of Rs.26,000/- compared to his previous employment as Professor in S.V. Medical College, Tirupati. Pursuant to communication of the said audit objection, the sixth respondent replied that his appointment as Director of SVIMS does not amount to 5 re-employment, as it is a fresh appointment by way of separate G.Os. issued from time to time, in which there is no reference to re-employment. Therefore, the sixth respondent has stated that his previous service in the State Government is no way related to his present fresh appointment as Director of the SVIMS and the Executive Board of SVIMS, who is competent to fix the pay of the Director of SVIMS as per Section 17(6) of the Act 12 of 1995, has fixed his pay without linkage to pension. In view of the said reply from the sixth respondent, the matter was placed before the Executive Board meeting of the University on 24.05.2011 and it was resolved by the Board that "in as much as the matter was already referred to the Government, Secretary to Government (Health) will pursue further in the matter". Pursuant thereto, a communication, vide letter dated 27.06.2011, was sent to the Principal Secretary, and response thereto is stated to be awaited.
With regard to the second objection, as regards effecting irregular promotions and regularizations, it is stated that the promotions effected to the staff working in the Colleges of Physiotherapy and Nursing were objected to on the ground that though the Institute adopted the UGC scales, the rules stipulated by UGC were not followed while giving promotions from the post of Lecturer to Associate Professor and from the post of Associate Professor to Professor, which resulted in excess payment. Accordingly, action was initiated by the respondent Institute reverting the individuals to the posts to which they are eligible as per UGC rules and excess amounts paid to them on account of their promotion were directed to be recovered, vide proceedings dated 17.05.2010, after due approval from FC and EB of SVIMS, Tirupati. 6 Further, as per the decision taken by the Executive Board, a letter was addressed to the Government to ratify the regularization of ad hoc staff nurses, but the Government has not accepted the same. Meanwhile, the individuals approached the High Court by filing W.P. No.25148 of 2014 and obtained interim orders. The said writ petition is pending consideration.
Insofar as the third objection, regarding sanction of medical reimbursement against the rules is concerned, it is stated that it was an audit objection raised in relation to medical claims of one Smt. T. Prabhavathi, Assistant Director (Nursing) and upon verification and enquiry, it was found that she claimed reimbursement by producing a certificate that her husband is dependent on her, though he is not, and therefore, disciplinary action for removal from service was taken against her.
With regard to the audit objections shown at Sl.Nos.4 to 7, 11 and 12 in the table extracted above, it is stated that necessary directions are issued to the concerned sections/departments to clear the said audit objections, and if in spite of that, the objections are not cleared, necessary action would be initiated against the concerned.
Insofar as the objections at Sl. Nos. 8, 9 and 10, i.e., admission of students in excess of sanctioned seats and conducting courses without prior approval, outstanding bills pending from 1994-96 to 2007-08 and loss of interest from bank due to maintenance of current accounts instead of savings account is concerned, it is stated that all those audit objections were dropped by the Accountant General Department, vide audit communications dated 21.02.2012 and 30.08.2013. 7
Having regard to the explanation given to the audit objections, as indicated above, the Registrar of the second respondent University stated that all of them are in relation to administrative issues of the institution in which the entire administrative hierarchy is involved before the final sanction of the Head of the institution and, therefore, the responsibility cannot solely be attributed to the sixth respondent. He also stated that all the audit objections would be subjected to scrutiny as per rules and regulations and if any objections are not cleared as per rules in vogue, appropriate action would be initiated against the concerned public servants as per the rules applicable.
From the above counter-averments, it is clear that action was taken to clear certain audit objections. Insofar as the objections which could not be cleared, the second respondent shall ensure that appropriate action would be initiated against the concerned public servants as per rules, as stated in the counter-affidavit.
With the above observation, the writ petition is closed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ __________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Dt: 20.08.2019 IBL 8 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.21562 of 2011 Dt: 20.08.2019 IBL