IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 543 of 2002 Between: P. Venkata Ramulu S/o P. Ramulu R/o H.No. 1-3-79/11, Sunkulamma Mettu, Near New Bus Stand, Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Atmakur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. 4 The Superintending Engineer, A.P.C.P. Distribution Camp, Hyderabad A.P.Transco, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dt. 19-12-2001 vide Order No. I/2404/2001 issued by 3rd Respondent and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to enter into the said land illegal attached by the respondent No.3 as illegal. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.RAVI PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.543 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring notice dated 19-12-2001 issued by the 3rd respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to enter into the land that was illegally attached by the 3rd respondent. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that while he was working as revenue cashier at the office of the E.R.O., Atmakur, Mahabubnagar district, he was placed under suspension from the service on the allegation of misappropriation of funds. In respect of the said allegation of misappropriation, enquiry was initiated by appointing an Enquiry Officer and also a criminal case was registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer cancelled the allegations of misappropriation of funds vide letter dated 21-09-2001. During the existence of said cancellation letter, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 19-11-2001 under Section 25 of the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short ‘the Act’) demanding prior attachment of immovable property which is situated at Mullamalla village in Survey No.236-A and 288 to an extent of Acs.7.97 cents and the same was issued in pursuance of the letter dated 26-07-2001 of the 4th respondent-Superintending Engineer. In response to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 28-11-2001 stating that the Enquiry Officer canceled the allegations leveled against him. Despite the said explanation, the 3rd respondent issued another notice dated 19-12-2001 under Section 29 of the Act, notice of assumption of agreement. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the notice dated 19- 12-2001 is absolutely illegal for the reason that the said Act does not have applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instance case. Hence, the present writ petition. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner also filed WPMP.No.613 of 2002 seeking suspension of the order dated 19-12-2001 of the 3rd respondent. This Court on 04-01-2002 while issuing Rule nisi granted interim suspension on condition of the petitioner depositing 1/4th of the amount demanded within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, in default the impugned order stands operative. Further, on 11-09-2002 the learned Government Pleader stated that the condition of interim order was not complied with. Therefore, the interim order granted on 04-01-2002 was vacated. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was kept under suspension from service due to misappropriation of funds of the APCPDCL for an amount of Rs.2,97,993/-. To safeguard and protect the funds of APCPDCL, a demand notice for attachment of immovable property has been issued on 19-11-2001 and the same was served on 03-12-2001. Since the petitioner did not remit the misappropriated amount, even after giving sufficient time for remittance, impugned notice was issued to him as per the said Act. It is also submitted that the petitioner has collected the CC charges from the consumers and failed to render the account to the concerned office for which, the case is referred to the District Collector, Mahabubnagar for implementing the said Act against the petitioner. Hence, the action taken on the petitioner to enforce the said Act, as per instruction of the District Collector, is correct. Since the misappropriated amount was not remitted, even though the notice for attachment of immovable properties are served, the departmental action is under process and not dropped against the petitioner, implementation of the said Act is essential to realize the misappropriated amount from the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner did not comply with the conditional order of depositing 1/4th of the misappropriated amount. Eventually, it is requested to dismiss the writ petition. In view of the averments made in the writ affidavit as well as the averments made in the counter affidavit what is to be seen is that whether the impugned notice suffers from any legal infirmity? The petitioner is an employee of APCPDCL and he was kept under suspension vide Memo dated 27-04-2001 on the allegation that he misappropriated certain amount of the APCPDCL stated to have been collected by him towards CC charges from the consumers and failed to remit the same to the concerned account. Therefore, the petitioner was issued charge Memo dated 05-09-2001 and subsequently the same was cancelled by the Divisional Engineer/Electrical Enquiries & Enquiry Officer Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad vide Memo dated 21-09-2001. Thereafter, as per the instructions of the District Collector, the 3rd respondent issued notice dated 19-11-2001 under Section 25 of the Act, demanding prior attachment of immovable property for which the petitioner stated to be submitted his explanation on 28-11-2001 explaining the circumstances about the cancellation of the charges leveled against him and informed the 3rd respondent that such notice cannot be given at that stage. Without taking into consideration the explanation stated to be offered by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent again issued another notice dated 19-12-2001 under Section 29 of the Act, notice of assumption of agreement. Now the main grievance of the petitioner is that though the charge sheet was issued against him and subsequently the same was cancelled by the Enquiry Officer and the same was informed vide his explanation and without taking into consideration the same, the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 19-12-2001. At this stage, a doubt can be entertained whether the copy of cancellation of allegations against the petitioner was served to all the concerned, if not, the impugned notice issued, as per the instructions of the District Collector, by the 3rd respondent is not suffered from any legal infirmity. Further, from a perusal of the record, it is the submission of the petitioner that the allegations leveled against him were cancelled and the submission of the respondent in his counter is that the departmental action is under process and not dropped against the petitioner. Further, it is to be noted that initially this Court granted interim suspension on condition of the petitioner depositing 1/4th of the demanded amount and on non-compliance with the same, the said interim suspension was vacated. Under these circumstances, it is just and proper to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry, pending against the petitioner, if not already completed, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 01-05-2009 LSK/YVL