IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.24573 of 2006 Between: K.S. Ramana S/o. K.S. Venkataramana aged 46 yrs, R/o. D.No. 18-3-61/9, Khadhi Colony, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Rep. by its Executive Officer, K.T. Road, Tirupati, 2 The Chairman,Board of Trustees, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Revenue (Endts.II) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the name of MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in Memo No. 56858/Endts. III/A2/2004-05 dt. 8-12-2005 of the 3rd Respondent Government communicated to petitioner by the 1st Respondent in proceedings Roc No. B2/12677/04 dt. 11-1-2006 of the 1st Respondent confirming the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on him by the 1st Respondent in proceedings in Roc No. DA3/14932/99 dt. 15-4-2002 and also Board Res. No. 611 dt. 21 & 22-12-2003 of the 2nd respondent Communicated to him in proceedings in Roc No. DA2/22536/2003 dt. 29-12-2003 of the 1st Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India besides violative of principles of natural justice and by nullifying the same consequential direct the respondents to reinstate him into service with backwages continuity of service and all other attendant and consequential benefits and pass such other relief or relies as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Dr.P.B.VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.24573 of 2006 ORDER; This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in Memo No.56858/Endts.III/A2/2004-05, dated 8-12-2005 of the 3rd respondent-Government communicated to the petitioner through the Proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 11-1-2006 confirming the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the 1st respondent in Proceedings Roc.No.DA3/14932/99, dated 15-4-2002 and also Board Resolution No.611, dated 21/22-1-2003 of the 2nd respondent communicated to the petitioner through Proceedings dated 29-12-2003 of the 1st respondent as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant and consequential benefits. It appears, petitioner while working as Paricharika at Prayer Hall, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams’ Information Center, Chennai, was issued a charge sheet dated 21-2-2000 enumerating the following charges: Charge No.1: ‘That you being a Paricharika working in Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams’ Prayer hall, TTD Information Centre, Chennai, you are not expected to install a personal telephone bearing No.4328491 in the transit accommodation provided to you, in the TTD Information Centre, Chennai, without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority and thus exhibited misconduct. Charge No.2: “that you being an employee of TTD purchased a car without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, against the Conduct Rules for your personal benefit and thus, you have exhibited misconduct. Charge No.3: “that you being a TTD's servant, you are not expected to use your official designation for private purposes, on the other hand, by representing that you are a TTD employee had purchased jewellery articles and taken hand loans etc., from various devotees, visiting to TTD prayer hall, TTD Information Centre, Chennai, and thus tarnished the image of the center in the minds of public and thus exhibited moral turpitude.” Charge No.4: “that you have stolen an amount of Rs.900/- in the residence of Dr. G.Krishnan, Chennai, when you were provided food in his house and thus you have indulged in committing theft and demeaned the reputation of the institution in the mind of public and thus exhibited your misconduct and moral turpitude.” Charge No.5: “that you being a TTD employee, you are prohibited from doing any private business or activities as per the conduct rules, on the other hand, you have entered into a contract for the supply of Moorthies as well as construction of a temple at Mumbai by accepting an award at a cost of Rs.2.5 lakhs from the Rolta India Ltd., Chennai and thus you have exhibited misconduct. Charge No.6: ‘that you being an employee of TTD, you are expected to join duty at any place wherever you are transferred, on the other hand, you have not joined duty at VNS Temple, Nagulapuram on your transfer from TTD Information Centre, Chennai, and thus you have exhibited insubordination and indiscipline attitude.” Charge No.7: “that you were transferred from Chennai to VNS Temple, Nagulapuram was made on complaint from public you instead of obeying the Orders, filed a W.P. in the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, challenging your transfer orders and thus exhibited disobedience of orders of the competent authority and proved to be an unworthy TTD's servant.” After conducting a detailed enquiry into the said charges, the Enquiry Officer gave a report holding that the charges 1,3,5 and 7 were proved, while the other charges were not proved. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 22-1-2002 was issued asking the petitioner as to why the punishment of removal from service should not be imposed against him. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 4-2-2002. In the meanwhile, he was transferred from Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams’ Information Centre, Chennai to Sri Vedanarayana Swamy Temple, Nagulapuram, Chittoor District, but the same was withdrawn on 2-4-2002 and was posted at Tirupati. However, without considering his explanation to the said show cause, Proceedings dated 15-4-2002 were issued imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was rejected in Board Resolution No.611, dated 21/22-12-2003 and the same was communicated to the petitioner through Proceedings dated 29-12-2003. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred a further appeal before the 3rd respondent, but the same was also rejected by Proceedings dated 8-12-2005. According to the petitioner, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the 1st respondent as confirmed by respondents 2 and 3 is arbitrary and illegal. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is asserted that the enquiry was conducted after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the same and the Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence of the witnesses. On the basis of the Enquiry Officer’s report, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement against the petitioner, since the charges are grave in nature and proved in full. No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned Orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner and the charges were framed without there being any factual basis and there was no cogent or sufficient evidence to prove the same. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are contrary to the evidence on record. Respondent No.1 had passed the impugned Order as a vindictive measure. The Telephone connection at TTD Information Center, Chennai was necessitated on account of the pathetic ill-health (cancer) of the petitioner’s wife and the petitioner took telephone connection after obtaining sanction of the Manager of the Centre. With regard to the allegation that the petitioner had purchased jewellery articles and taken hand loans from various devotees of TTD center at Chennai, the charge has no basis. Petitioner had not taken any hand loans and this plotted only to blame the petitioner. Further, neither the petitioner has purchased gold articles nor stood as guarantor. No scrap of paper was filed in this regard. Further, the punishment imposed is disproportionate to that of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Respondent No.1 has not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice on 4-2-2002 properly and passed the impugned Order compulsorily retiring him from service, which was erroneously confirmed by respondents 2 and 3. The charges are vague and they were not proved. It is unfortunate that one of the charges is that the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition when he was transferred, instead of obliging the Orders passed by the respondents. This, in fact, amounts to contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. Neither the charges are proved nor the punishment was proportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned Orders are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the same stand as was taken in the counter and stated that the charges are very serious in nature. In fact, the 1st respondent was very lenient and, therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed, instead of dismissing the petitioner from service. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned Orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Orders and other material made available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, it may be necessary to notice the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which read as under: “Regarding the charge (1) the charged official, Sri K.S. Ramana, in his explanation has stated that he has got installation of telephone in his name in the room allotted to him at Chennai is also known to Manager and to own a telephone is not an offence and there is no financial commitment to TTD. He further deposed that his wife is suffering from cancer and he was badly in need of a telephone to be in touch with doctors and he denied that the telephone was converted as STD Booth and no such permission was granted by the Department. The charged official has not produced any permission accorded to him in this regard in obtaining telephone connection exclusively in his name in the premises of TTD Information Centre. Thus, he is guilty of charge No.1. With regard to charge No.2, the charged official has denied that he had purchased an ambassador car for his personal conveyance. Further, the Manager, during the enquiry has deposed that he heard about purchasing of an ambassador car by Sri K.S. Ramana and he could not memorise himself the communication from the finance company received in the name of charged official. Thus except oral statement of the manager, no evidence was placed by the Manager to the effect that the charged official purchased the car. Hence, in the absence of any material evidence, the charge could not be held proved against the charged official. With regard to the charge No.3, the charged official during the enquiry has deposed that his son is not receiving credits, loans from various regular devotees visiting information center and not clearing the same and he further denied he is not aware of the purchase of gold jewels by his son from Thangamaligai to a tune of Rs.36,217/- and even if there are any such transactions, he cannot be blamed and Thangamaligai can file a suit for recovery of the amount. Sri Balasubramanyam, who was eamined during the enquiry on behalf of Thangamaligai, deposed that C.O’s son purchased gold jewellery to a tune of Rs.36,217/- and paid Rs.20,000/-. The C.O. during enquiry has undertaken to pay the balance amount within 2 months for which Balasubramanian agreed. The evidence of Sri B. Balasubramanian, proves the transaction of his son with the firm Thangamaligai and the CO to avoid his indulgence in this transaction got the jewels purchased through his son. Further, Sri K.S. Nagabhushanam, Caretaker of CDA Chennai, during the enquiry has deposed that the CO has purchased CSD items worth of Rs.3,004/- from his department and subsequently, the CO settled the amount and there are no dues at present. Sri Mohamad Ali, Manager and Owner of Hotel ROMES of Chennai, in the enquiry has deposed that the CO has received Rs.5,000/- from the Cashier of the Hotel namely, Sri Hanifa Hazi, but repaid it after one week. The amount was given to the charged official for the purpose of charges of coins under signatures of CO dated 8-2-99. All the above evidently established that the CO and his son have used official designation for private purposes by representing as an employee of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and have purchased jewel articles and other articles from the devotees visiting Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams I/C and have tarnished the image of the institution in the minds of public and thus exhibited misconduct and moral turpitude. Thus, the charge No.3 is held proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Regarding charge No.4, the charged official during the enquiry has not deposed anything about the stealing of Rs.900/- from the residence of Dr.G.Krishna, Chennai. In fact, Dr. G.Krishna has attended the enquiry, and has not proved his complaint. In the absence of any evidence available on record, this charge could not be established against Charged Official. Regarding charge No.5, the Charged Official during the enquiry has not deposed anything about his defence to this charge specifically, but during his cross-examination by the Enquiry Officer, C.O’s son had deposed that he worked with M.S. Palanichary, a Silpi, as representative and with regard to supply of idols to M/s Rotla India Limited, Bombay, Sri Balaji Silpa Kala Nilayam alone has dealings in it. However, as per the contents in the letter of M/s. Rotla India Limited addressed to the Dy.E.O. (AT), it is evident that Sriram, the son of the charged official of TTD Temple, Madras, has finally informed the company that the idol of Lord Venkateswara, Jaya, Vijaya Dwarapalakulu, Garudalwar, Balipeetams etc., costs about 2.20 lakhs and the company, basing on the final information, finally decided to award the contract for supply as well as the construction of temple along with silver ornaments. By which although the charged official and his son saying that they have no involvement, the involvement of charged official’s son was established, as per the letter. Hence, the charged official with a view to escape from departmental actions, doing contracts in the name of his son and he is guilty of the charge to this extent. Regarding charges 6&7 – As both the charges are one and the same, they can be dealt as one charge. The charged official, during the enquiry has deposed that he does not know that he was transferred to VNS Temple, Narayanavanam on a complaint. He further deposed that there are no complaints against him and no memos were served to him. But, the Manager, TTD Information Centre, Madras during the enquiry has deposed that on 19-12-1999, the charged official, saying that he will receive the transfer orders after-meals and went away and hence the orders of his transfer could not be served on him. The charged official, taking advantage of, non-service of transfer orders on him went on leave, alleging the ill-health of his wife. He further deposed that he although informed about ill health of his wife and the studies of his daughter at Madras, the Executive Officer has not considered his request and so only he approached the High Court, by which it is clear that the charged official is aware of his transfer and in the said connection to avoid his transfer seems to have applied for leave and went away and subsequently met the Executive Officer, and on his refusal he approached the Court. Thus the charged official instead of obeying the transfer orders approached the Executive Officer and on his refusal, he approached the Court exhibiting his insubordination, indiscipline attitude. Thus, he is guilty of charge Nos.6& 7. A plain reading of the above would indicate that it is unfortunate that the petitioner was implicated into certain charges, which cannot be framed against him and he cannot be blamed for his son purchasing gold ornaments or some CSD items etc. Even if the petitioner purchased some CSD items, hardly they are of the value of about Rs.3,000/-. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are all baseless and contrary to the evidence on record. The whole case seems to have been dug up for the reason that the petitioner filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.71 of 2000, which was disposed directing the respondents to consider his representation dated 21-12-1999 and when the directions issued in the said Writ Petition were not carried out, he filed a contempt case in C.C.No.118 of 2000. The charges are vague and do not arise out of his employment, in the strict sense. Respondents somehow wanted to frame some charges against the petitioner and conduct an enquiry into the same. This is one such case where the petitioner was wrongfully implicated with some mala fide intention to cause damage to his service career. Respondents could not have acted as ‘conscience keepers of the son of the petitioner’. The fact that the petitioner’s wife was suffering from Cancer and, therefore, he sought for transfer, deputation etc., and also sought for installation of a telephone connection in his transit residence is not in dispute. It is interesting to notice that charges 6 and 7 relate to the fact that the petitioner has filed a Writ Petition before this Court when he was transferred to Nagulapuram, instead of complying with the Orders passed by the respondents. This charge is nothing but amounts to contempt of the Court Orders. Petitioner’s right to seek remedies under the law cannot be curtailed by a public authority like the respondents. This very charge itself indicates the mind and mala fide intention of the respondents. Further, absolutely, there was no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of any of the charges and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. I am of the opinion that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner in passing the impugned Orders. Therefore, the impugned Orders of compulsory retirement passed by the 1st respondent as confirmed by respondents 2 and 3 are arbitrary and illegal and as such, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned Orders are set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith with all consequential benefits, such as, continuity of service, back wages, increments etc. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. 18-3-2008 prk