IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.9752 of 2001 Between: N. Anjutha Rao, S/o Chokka Rao .. Petitioner AND The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Girijan Cooperative Coprporation Limited, Visakhapatnam and another .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam in RC.No.3975 of 1998 Admn.7, dated 24-4-2001 by which a major penalty of reversion was imposed on the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner’s case is that he was working as Senior Accountant, Sub-Office, Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam District, at the time of filing of the writ petition and he was originally appointed as Sales Manager in May, 1971, promoted as Junior Assistant in December, 1971 and further promoted as Senior Assistant/Senior Accountant in 1978 since when he was continuously working with the Corporation satisfactorily without ever receiving any charge memo or any other adverse proceedings or remark. While so, a charge memo was served on him on 2-11-1998 about the failure to recover Rs.1,49,600/- from Sri T. Venkataiah, CCPA and further about indiscriminately issuing advances to the said T. Venkataiah without proper checking. The writ petitioner was claimed to have submitted his explanation to the charge memo and the 1st respondent, even before issuing the charge memo to the writ petitioner, served a copy of the report dated 9-10-1998 endorsing that he colluded with the Senior Manager in the matter, thus prejudging the issue. The 1st respondent issued a Provisional Conclusion Order on 18-9-1999 proposing to impose the punishment of reversion to the next lower grade i.e. Junior Assistant, against which the writ petitioner was asked to submit his written explanation, which he submitted on 16-10-1999. The proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 18-9-1999 were issued for recovery of Rs.37,400/- with 24% interest from the writ petitioner and without conducting any regular departmental enquiry and only by giving a personal hearing on 6-6-2000, the impugned order of reversion was passed. The relevant rules applicable to the writ petitioner provided for the procedure to be followed in the case of disciplinary proceedings in Appendix-E as per which a regular enquiry ought to be conducted. Hence, the writ petitioner challenged the impugned order as being in violation of principles of natural justice and the prescribed rules. The writ petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition before the impugned order was implemented and an order of interim suspension was granted by this Court WPMP.No.12279 of 2001. The counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents claiming that the Minor Forest Produce (MFP) liabilities of Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Mannanoor were verified by the Divisional Manager, Srisailam and it was found that Rs.2,38,000/- were outstanding against Sri T. Venkataiah, Credit-cum-Purchase Assistant at Mohammadabad. After the stocks worth Rs.89,000/- were adjusted, a balance of Rs.1,49,600/- still remained. The writ petitioner, who was working as Senior Accountant, did not adjust the liability of the amount in spite of specific instructions of the Manager of the Society and large scale misappropriation had taken place for which the writ petitioner was found to be responsible. The respondent further contended that as the writ petitioner failed to discharge his legitimate duties and safeguard the interests of the Corporation, charges were framed against him under the charge memo dated 12-11-1998 and after receiving his explanation on 23-11-1998, the writ petitioner was given personal hearing as requested by him in Form-I and he was also given the Provisional Conclusion Order, for which he submitted an explanation and he was heard in person on 6-6-2000 and final orders were passed only after the personal hearing. The principles of natural justice are no way violated nor the service rules violated. The respondents further stated that in the light of the interim suspension order granted by this Court, the punishment of reversion was kept abeyance and hence, they sought for vacation of the interim suspension order and dismissal of the writ petition. However, the order of interim suspension continued to be in force throughout till today. Heard Sri N. Madhava Rao, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2. It is represented by both the learned counsel that in the light of the order of interim suspension granted by this Court, the writ petitioner continued in service and later had two promotions and ultimately retired on reaching the age of superannuation in 2009. Firstly, considering the merits of the contentions of the writ petitioner against the impugned order, it is not in dispute that the writ petitioner is governed by the Service Rules, Appendix-E of which mandates that an enquiry must necessarily be held where the employee asks for it, or has expressed a desire to be heard in person or having regard to the written statement in defence, or the statement made by the employee himself when he is heard in person, a further enquiry is necessary to decide the truth of the charges. A regular departmental enquiry is, therefore, a must under the relevant rules. The writ petitioner in his explanation to the charge memo or the Provisional Conclusion Order did not admit the charges and when the Provisional Conclusion Order and the final reversion order involved a major penalty, an oral enquiry as per the rules ought to have been conducted before imposing the penalty, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Appendix- E to the Rules. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order of reversion is not in conformity with the Rules governing the writ petitioner and is not legal or valid. However, as the writ petitioner continued in the service of the Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, in the light of the interim order of suspension granted by this Court in WPMP.No.12279 of 2001 dated 15-05-2001 and had the benefit of two promotions subsequently before retirement on reaching the age of superannuation and as the writ petitioner is stated to have received all the terminal/retiral benefits for his services, any formal order for setting aside the order of reversion is not called for at this stage and it is suffice to record that the impugned order of reversion cannot be sustained due to violation of rules, which will safeguard the interest of the writ petitioner against any uncalled for precipitate action by the respondent on the dead charges at this distance of time. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-12-2010 Ksn