THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.233 OF 2012 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ appeal is filed against the order dated 05-11-2010 passed in W.P.No.17975 of 2001. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: The 1st respondent was working as Assistant Manager (General) in the office of the Zonal Manager (Operations) F.C.A., Visakhapatnam, A.P. Region. On the basis of some irregularities committed by him, the following articles of charges were framed against the 1st respondent: 1) Shri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (Gen.,) working in the Office of the Joint Manager (Operations) F.C.I., Visakhapatnam has failed to look after his family and stopped financial support to the family for the last 7 years and thus failed to discharge his responsibilities towards his spouse and family. That the said Sri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (G) is therefore charged with the contravention of Regulation 32(A), Sub- Regulation 23 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. 2) Sri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (General) working in the office of the Joint Manager (Opns) FCI , Visakhapatnam has deserted his wife and children and is living with a lady of 30 years age. That the said Sri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (Genl.,) is therefore charged with the contravention of Regulation 32(A) Sub-Regulation 24 of PCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. 3) Sri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (Genl.) working in the Office of the Joint Manager (Opns.) FCI, Visakhapatnam has furnished wrong date of birth other than that recorded in his school records at the time of appointment as Junior Clerk in Office of the Deputy Director (Food), FCI, Madras Harbour, Madras. The said Sri I.N.Murthy is therefore charged for contravention of Regulation 32 (A) Sub-Regulation 4 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. 4) Sri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (Genl.,) working in the Office of the Joint Manager (Opns.,) FCI, Visakhapatnam has preferred a false TA Bill for Rs.3,196/- for his journey to and fro Madras on 7.8.1996 in connection with visit to Apollo Hospital, Madras for routine medical ckeck-up. He is, therefore, charged for contravention of Regulation 32 Sub-Regulation 1 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971”. Accordingly, the 3rd appellant was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire about the said charges. The 3rd appellant conducted an enquiry and ultimately came to the conclusion that the charges under Articles 1, 2 and 4 have been proved and charge under Article 3 is not proved against the 1st respondent and he sent the enquiry reports to the 2nd appellant and the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent after receiving the same, submitted a written representation, dated 17-05-2000, to the 2nd appellant. Then the 2nd appellant under Section 56 of F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971 read with Regulation 54 of the F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971, issued impugned proceedings dated 26-06-2000 removing the 1st respondent from service. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal before the 1st appellant. The 1st appellant, by the impugned orders, dated 12-07-2001, dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent preferred the present writ petition contending that the charge under Article 3 was held to be not proved by the Enquiry Officer. So far as charges under Articles 1 and 2 are concerned, the said charges were framed based on the complaint given by the wife of the 1st respondent. However, subsequently, she herself had withdrawn the said complaint, therefore, the authorities are not justified in passing the removal order. During pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent died and his legal representations were brought on record vide orders dated 01-05-2009 in W.P.M.P.No.10043 of 2009. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated 12-07-2001 issued by the 1st appellant and directed the appellants to pass appropriate orders and consequently, the deceased 1st respondent shall be deemed to have been reinstated into service with continuity of service with full back wages and all attendant benefits and accordingly, retiremental benefits, pension, etc., shall be paid to the legal representatives of the 1st respondent i.e. respondents 2 to 8 herein, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal is filed by the appellants-authorities. 3. Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the enquiry officer’s report, the proceedings of the disciplinary authority and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 4. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the appellants, contended that the charge with regard to the Article No.4 is very serious and admittedly, 1st respondent has himself confessed that he has claimed false T.A bills, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have set aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority. 5. As seen from the impugned order, it is clear that the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition observed that so far as charges I and II are concerned, the allegations against the 1st respondent are that he had failed to look after his family and stopped financially supporting them and further he has deserved his legally wedded wife and living with some other lady. Admittedly, those charges were framed based on the complaint given by the wife of the 1st respondent, but however, thereafter, the said complaint was withdrawn by her vide application dated 05-05-2000 requesting the appellants to close the proceedings initiated against her husband. Further, she filed O.P.No.277 of 1996 for restitution of conjugal rights and O.S.No.47 of 1997 for claiming maintenance against the 1st respondent. The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, by his common order, dated 05-02-1999, while dismissing the said O.P. partly allowed the suit, and thereafter, she had joined her husband and was living with him under one roof and all the disputes between them were solved. Therefore, the authorities ought to have taken the same into consideration and held that the charges under Articles 1 and 2 are not proved, or even if they are proved, on withdrawal of the complaint by his wife, the said charges would have been compounded. So far as Article No.4 is concerned, the allegations made against the 1st respondent are that the delinquent preferred a false T.A. Bill of Rs.3,000/- in the year 1996 for the travel to and from Madras on 07-08-1996 and 09-08-1996 in order to visit Apollo Hospital for medical check up. Admittedly, the 1st respondent was suffering from heart problem and it appears that enquiry was initiated in 1996 itself, but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same was closed vide reference No.V & S 7 (27)/96, dated 26-06-1996. Further the learned Single Judge further observed that though the appellants filed counter affidavit, it reveals that the matter was under consideration by the competent authority and appropriate administrative action was taken. However, it is not clarified as to what action was taken by the authorities on the said allegation. When the matter was closed long back, the authorities are not justified in adding the same allegations once again after four years. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge, set aside the impugned order dated 12-07-2001. 6. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that the learned Single Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons and rightly allowed the writ petition since the charges under Articles 1 to 3 are not proved and in charge under Article 4, he was warned by the proceedings, dated 10-12- 1991, with regard to the misconduct committed by him. 7. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED Dated:29-12-2011 ____________________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO kvr