IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9702 of 2000 Between: I.Sambasiva Rao S/o.I.S.S.Suryanarayana Rao Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director, Defence Electronics Research Laboratory, Chandrayanagutta Hyderabad. 2 The Director, General Research Development Organisation Directorate of Personnel, DHO New Delhi. 3 The Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad Bench. ..... 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 Certiorari, calling for the records leading upto the passing of the orders by the 1st respondent in proceedings No.DLRL/PERS/ISR/350 dt.1-6-1994 as confirmed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.RD/PERS-10/21538/95 (10) DLRL dt.9-12-1995 as confirmed by the 3rd respondent by its order dt.28-4-99 in O.A.No.1372/96 and in review application R.A.No.3/2000 dt.4-2-2000 and renew the said orders and quash the punishment imposed by the 1st respondent to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SRI K.MANIK PRABHU The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9702 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed assailing the order, dated 28-04-1999, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.A.No.1372 of 1996. 2. The brief facts are; the petitioner was working as a Store Keeper at DLRL, Hyderabad. The allegation against the petitioner is that during the year 1972-1974, he preferred false medical bills amounting to a tune of Rs.3,045.35 ps. saying that he has spent that money for treatment of himself, his parents and other members of his family. On noticing that the expenditure incurred by the Department towards medical reimbursement exceeded the amount of previous years, the matter was enquired into and during enquiry, it was revealed that the bills submitted by the petitioner and as well as several others were not genuine bills. During enquiry, certain employees admitted that they acquired false medical bills through the present petitioner, who acted as an agent for procuring Essentiality Certificates for his colleagues. The Director, DLRL, Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 24.06.1996 and 27.04.1977 issued two charge memos to the petitioner with regard to procurement of false medical bills and false Essentiality Certificates etc. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 04.08.1976. Challenging the competency of the Director, DLRL, in placing him under suspension and issuing the charge memo, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3400 of 1979 before this court and the said writ petition was allowed holding that the Director, DLRL was not the competent authority to issue charge memo. Against the judgment of this Court, the Director, DLRL approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which set aside the judgment of this Court and held that the Director, DLRL was competent to issue charge memo. In the meanwhile, the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 came into force and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal and re-numbered as T.A.No.8 of 1991, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the matter to be decided on merits. The Administrative Tribunal vide its order, dated 29-05-1992, dismissed T.A.No.8 of 1991 with a direction to the respondent authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously. The petitioner filed O.A.No.54 of 1994 seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and the Tribunal directed the respondent authorities to complete the disciplinary proceedings. After conducting enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner, a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer and after complying with the required procedure, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide proceedings, dated 01-06-1994, which reads as follows:- “Revoked the suspension order with effect from 01.06.1994. It is, therefore, ordered that the pay of Shri I.Sambasiva Rao be reduced by one stage from Rs.1110/- to Rs.1090/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25- 1500/- for a period of FOUR years with effect from 01.06.1994. It is further directed that Shri I.Sambasiva Rao will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. An amount of Rs.3153.95 drawn under the said false medical bills is recoverable in 36 equal installments with effect from June, 1994 salary. Further, the disciplinary authority has declared the period from the date placing the individual under suspension to the date of revocation of suspension order i.e. from 04.08.1976 to 31.05.1994 does not count for seniority or increments and it counts only for pension and terminal benefits.” 3. Now the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that there was abnormal delay in concluding the enquiry and that all the witnesses examined did not support the case against the petitioner and that the sentence imposed is disproportionate. 4. As far as the question of delay is concerned, the petitioner himself has contributed substantially for the same by filing a writ petition, which was allowed by this Court and then filing another O.A.No.54 of 1994 etc. As such, in the circumstances, the delay is of no consequence. Coming to the question of all the witnesses not supporting the case against the petitioner, it is not in dispute that about five witnesses examined have stated that the petitioner has acted as an agent in supplying false medical bills etc. It has to be noted that the witnesses are no other than the colleagues of the petitioner and who are benefited by him initially, as such, they had no cause to give false evidence against him. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. On this ground also, the case of the petitioner cannot be accepted. 5. Coming to the question of disproportionate punishment, we feel that this contention also cannot be accepted in view of the serious nature of the charges, which are of not only submitting false medical bills but also organizing a large-scale fraud of false medical bills. In fact, it has to be observed that the authorities were lenient towards the petitioner while imposing the punishment. Thus, there are absolutely no grounds to allow the writ petition, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J Date: 27th July, 2009 _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J Kl/Prv