IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 19069 of 2008 Between: K. Venugopal S/o. Late Krishnaiah O/o. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the proceedings CCT Ref.No. D3/2290/98 dt. 4-2-2003 issued by the 1st respondent and G.O.Rt.No. 1656, Revenue Department dt. 1-9- 2003 and G.O.Rt.No. 1905 Revenue Department dt. 6-10-2003 issued by the 2nd Respondent and further proceedings in CCT Ref.No. VI(D3)/2290/98 dt. 14-8-2005 issued by the 1st respondent including the common judgment of the Hon'ble Tribunal dt. 26-3- 2008 in O.A.No. 5529/2005 as arbitrary illegal, violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violating the principles of natural justice apart from ultra vires to Rule 20(4)(5) of the AP CS (CCA) Rules and set aside the same and issue consequential directions restraining the Respondents in CCT Ref. No. D3/2290/98 dt. 4-2-2003 issued by the 1st respondent and G.O.Rt.No. 1656 Revenue Department, dt. 1-9-2003 and G.O.Rt.No. 1905 Revenue Dept. dt. 6-10-2003 issued by the 2nd respondent and further proceedings in CCT Ref.No. VI (D3) /2290/98 dt. 14-8-2005 issued by the 1st respondent till disposal of CC No. 25/2002 by the Hon'ble Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases Nellore and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is ﬁled challenging the order dated 26.3.2008 passed in O.A.No. 5529 of 2005 on the ﬁle of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. O.A. was ﬁled to call for the records pertaining to CCT’s Ref.No. D3/2290/98 dated 4.2.2003, issued by the ﬁrst respondent, G.O.Rt.No. 1656 Revenue Department dated 1.9.2003, G.O.Rt.No. 1905 Revenue (Vig-II) Department dated 6.10.2003 to declare the same as arbitrary and illegal. Brief facts of the case are that when the petitioner was working as Commercial Tax Oﬃcer at Vijayawada, the ACB Oﬃcials of Nellore and Prakasam District conducted raid on his residence as well as in the oﬃce on 1.3.1996. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 388, Revenue (Vig-I) Department 29.6.2002 according permission to prosecute the petitioner, and they ﬁled a charge sheet against the petitioner in the Court of Special Judge for Trial of SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore in October, 2002 on the allegation that the petitioner-applicant was possessing disproportionate assets. In pursuance of the recommendations of the ACB authorities, departmental proceedings were also initiated under a charge memo dated 4.2.2003 by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Hyderabad for contravening of Rule 9(1) and 9(2) of A.P.C.S (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (herein referred to as “the Rules”). The petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he acquired both movable and immovable properties after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities and he did not possess any disproportionate assets and that he had not contravened the APCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No. 1656 dated 1.9.2003 appointing an Enquiry Oﬃcer to conduct enquiry into the matter and the Enquiry Oﬃcer submitted his report on 9.6.2004 holding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a show cause notice dated 4.8.2005 calling for the objections of the petitioner. At that time, he ﬁled O.A.No. 5529 of 2005 questioning the above said proceedings. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, held that the departmental proceedings have reached ﬁnal stage in the year 2005 only and because of the action of the applicant in ﬁling O.A.No. 5529 of 2005 and due to interim orders, the proceedings are delayed. Otherwise, the departmental proceedings might have come to ﬁnality by that time. As the enquiry report was already submitted and the objections of the applicant was called for on the enquiry report, it is not desirable at that stage to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion and accordingly, dismissed the O.A. Hence, the present Writ Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, vehemently contended that when a charge memo is issued by the disciplinary authority he alone has to exercise the power under Rule 20(2) of APCS (CC & A) Rules and the higher authority cannot do it. Instead of doing so, the matter has been referred to the Government and, therefore, the same is violative of the Conduct Rules. He further contended that the incident is of the year 1996 and the charge sheet was issued in the year 2000 and pursuant to the charge memo he submitted an explanation to the disciplinary authority either to drop the proceedings or to continue without exercising his powers. He also contended that the charge relating to disproportionate assets is seized by the Criminal Court and departmental proceedings cannot be proceeded. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended that with regard to the departmental proceedings relating to the misconduct the petitioner has violated the conduct rules without obtaining prior permission from the Government as required under Conduct Rule 9. Since he has obtained immovable property values without obtaining permission, it is open to the department to proceed with the departmental proceedings with regard to the alleged misconduct under Rule 9 of the Rules and whereas the criminal case relating to the charge of disproportionate assets, it is always open and desirable to conduct both the proceedings criminal as well as departmental at the same time and there is no bar since the charges are one and the same. However, the show cause notice was issued on 14.8.2008 and he is entitled to submit the explanation. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned G.P. for Services II. It is not in dispute that the ACB Oﬃcials conducted a raid on the residence of the petitioner and they ﬁled a charge sheet against him and also departmental proceeding were also initiated. For that, the petitioner submitted his explanation stating that he acquired both movable and immovable properties after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities and he did not possess any disproportionate assets. It is also not in dispute that an Enquiry Oﬃcer was appointed to conduct an enquiry and he after conducting enquiry submitted his report on 9.6.2004 holding that the charge was proved against the petitioner. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued a show cause notice dated 4.8.2005 calling for the objections of the petitioner and at that time, he ﬁled O.A and the Tribunal dismissed the same holding that as the enquiry report was already submitted and the objections of the applicant was called for on the enquiry report, it is not desirable at that stage to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion. The raid took place on 1.3.1996 and the charge memo was issued in the year 2002. When once show cause notice is issued by the disciplinary authority, it is always open to the petitioner to raise all the points pursuant to the show cause notice and the authority is entitled to consider the same and take appropriate decision. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the petitioner to raise all his objections pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the disciplinary authority is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED ,J ___________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Dt. 4.09.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. CC to G.P. for Services –I, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad. 4. 2CD copies