IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No: 11661 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, health Medical & Family Welfare (VC.II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, AP., Hyderabad-022 2 The Director of Health, Sultan Bazar, AP,Hyderabad 3 The Regional Director Medical and Health Services Warangal, Warangal District 4 The District Leprosy Officer, Warangal Warangal District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND P.Kistaiah S/o.Bhoomaiah Waranal, R/o.Mathrusree Apartments, C Block 401, Hydergyda Behind Appolo Hospital, Old MLA Quarters Road Hyderabad-500029 .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the Records relating to and connected with the orders dated 18.1.2008 in OA.No.3523 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Hon`ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and erroneous and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (PER GM,J) This writ petition is ﬁled by the State seeking to quash the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3523 of 2007 dated 18-01-2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. On receipt of two anonymous complaints along with press clippings of certain daily news papers containing allegations of corruption, misappropriation and malpractice against the District Leprosy Oﬃcer, Khammam and his staﬀ, the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta suo motu took up the same as a complaint, got investigated into the matter, identiﬁed Dr K.Madhukara Varma who is the then District Leprosy Oﬃcer, Khammam, and 8 other oﬃcials including the respondent herein responsible for the same and sent a report to the Government to that eﬀect. After examining the report of the Lokayukta, the Government have issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.783, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (VC.II) Department, dated 27-08-2002 placing the then District Leprosy Oﬃcer, Khammam, under suspension and directing the 2nd petitioner to take disciplinary action in respect of other staﬀ including the respondent herein as per G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 08-08-2002. In view of the amendment to Rule 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short – ‘the 1991 Rules’) the 2nd petitioner initiated the disciplinary proceedings against those oﬃcers by issuing show cause notices and furnishing enquiry report of the A.P. Lokayukta instead of framing charges separately and conducting inquiry under Section 21 of the Rules. After obtaining the explanations, examined the same with available records and dissatisﬁed with the explanations, the 2nd petitioner concluded the said disciplinary proceedings against six charged oﬃcers and sent report in respect of the respondent and two other oﬃcers to Government for taking further action since the respondent retired from service on 31-12- 2005 and two others are also retired from service and as the Government is only the competent authority to impose penalties under the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short –‘the 1980 Rules’), on the retired Government servants and the same is under process. However, the Government issued orders for payment of 75% of the provisional pension to the respondent out of the eligible pension. While the matter stood thus, the respondent ﬁled O.A.No.3523/2007 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal challenging the validity of issuing a show cause notice by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the disciplinary authority cannot issue a show cause notice without initiation of disciplinary proceedings i.e. without issuing a Charge Memo, consideration of explanation and conducting of inquiry etc. By the impugned orders the Tribunal has set aside the disciplinary action that has been initiated against the respondent as contrary to the procedure making it clear that the respondent is entitled to be released with all retiral beneﬁts. Assailing the same the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned Government Pleader contends that in view of the report of the A.P. Lokayukta read with the amended Rule 27 of the 1991 Rules, there is no need to issue any charge memo and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the very purpose of the amendment to Rule 27 of the 1991 Rules issued through G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 08-08-2002. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent vehemently contends that, ﬁrst of all, the investigation said to have been conducted by the Lokayukta is contrary to the procedure contemplated in Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 and in Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Investigation) Rules, 1984 and so the report submitted by the Lokayukta cannot be taken into consideration. He further contended that the petitioners also failed to issue charge memo to the respondent and thereby failed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings as per procedure and thereby failed to hear him on the allegations as well as on the punishment and so the order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 4. The amended Rule 27 of the 1991 Rules reads as follows: “27. Action on report of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta:- Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 20 or rule 22, where it is proposed to impose on a Government servant any of the penalties speciﬁed in rule 9 or rule 10 on the basis of the recommendation contained in the report mentioned in sub- section (1) of Section 1 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983, the disciplinary authority shall take action on the basis of the recommendation contained in the report, after furnishing a copy of the report to the charged Government servant to make a representation, if any, within a reasonable time ﬁxed and after taking into consideration such representation, and impose any of the penalties speciﬁed in rule 9 or rule 10. Provided that, the disciplinary authority for the purpose of this rule shall be the authority under rule 2(c) or as speciﬁed under clause (c) of section 2 of the A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983.” 5. Since the A.P.Lokayukta is not the disciplinary authority, it sent the report to the petitioners for conducting inquiry in accordance with the 1991 Rules. But, the petitioners instead of conducting disciplinary proceedings in accordance with Rule 21 of the 1991 Rules, simply issued a show cause notice and on obtaining explanation from the respondent examined the same with available records and decided to impose major penalty under Rule 9 of the 1991 Rules but the orders are yet to be passed. In this regard, it is the case of the petitioners that in view of the amendment to Rule 27 of the 1991 Rules, disciplinary action against the respondent was initiated by issuing a show cause notice and furnishing enquiry report of the A.P. Lokayukta to him instead of framing charges. So, it is clear that the procedure contemplated in the 1991 Rules is not followed in case of the respondent. The report of the A.P. Lokayukta being only a preliminary report, the disciplinary authority has to initiate the further disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo, considering the explanation and conducting of inquiry. Since no Charge Memo was served on the respondent and since no inquiry was conducted, it is clear that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the 1991 Rules and thereby he was not given an opportunity of being heard on the charges that may be levelled against him and the punishment that may be imposed against him. 6. Further, the anonymous telegram was of the year 2000 and the A.P. Lokayukta had sent its report on 09- 07-2002. On receipt of the report from the A.P. Lokayukta, the petitioners ought to have initiated proceedings by issuing a charge memo. But, they have not issued any charge memo and no enquiry was conducted. More so, the petitioners have treated the report of the A.P.Lokayukta as ﬁnal report and invoking the procedure contemplated under the amended Rule 27 of the 1991 Rules, issued a show cause notice and on receipt of explanation from the respondent examined the same with available record and decided to impose a major penalty under Rule 9 of the 1991 Rules but no orders are passed till the ﬁling of O.A.No.3523/2007 before the Tribunal. 7. From the above, it is clear that the disciplinary authority failed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings as per the 1991 Rules by issuing a charge memo and conducting inquiry. That apart, though the disciplinary proceedings were instituted in 2002, till 2007 no ﬁnal order was passed. In the circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the petitioners are directed to release all pensionary beneﬁts to the respondent. -------------------------------- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. --------------------- C.V.RAMULU, J. 28th August, 2008 cvrk