IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14640 of 2008 Between: S.H. Gondane S/o. H. Gondane Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011. 2 The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi 110069. .....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 declare the order dated 01.01.2008 passed in O.A.No.444/2007 passed by the Hon'ble Central Adminstrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuing appropriate writ, order or a direction, particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and consequently set aside the order dated 28.02.2007 passed by the 1st respondent imposing penalty of censure on the petitioner herein in the interest of justice one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MAHMOOD ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the order dated 1.1.2008 passed in O.A.No. 444 of 2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, as illegal and consequently set aside the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the ﬁrst respondent by imposing penalty of censure on the petitioner. Petitioner herein is the applicant in O.A. He ﬁled O.A to declare the order dated 28.2.2007 passed by the Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi, ﬁrst respondent herein, awarding the punishment of censure for the charges proved against him, as illegal. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer (Civil), Indoor Central Circle, Central, PWD, Indore from 8.9.1995 to 1.4.1998. It is stated that the Executive Engineer, Dewas Central Division, Central Public Works, Dewas, informed the petitioner that the works of construction of 105 quarters for BNP at Dewas, consisting of four sub works were in progress and that due to existence of black cotton soil, it required pre-constructional anti-termite treatment. He further stated that since the item of anti-termite treatment did not exist in the construction agreement, it was proposed to purchase chloropyriphos (Chemical) of 20% EC (ISI marked) after calling quotations and spraying work shall got to be executed through separate agency. It is further stated that the petitioner vide his letter No. 23(512)/ICC/97/310 dated 5.3.1997 directed the Executive Engineer/DCD to invite tenders and after complying necessary formalities the contract was awarded to M/s Premier Pest Control by the Executive Engineer, Dewas. It is further stated that on an anonymous compliant received by the authorities, the ﬁrst respondent through his subordinate oﬃcers conducted a preliminary investigation and afterwards proposed to hold an inquiry against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and framed the following two charges: “ Article-1: T he said S.H. Gondane vide his letter NO. 23 (512)/ICC/97/310 dated 5.3.1997 directed the EE, Dewas Central Division, Dewas that tenders may be called for individual works of anti-termite treatment by clubbing the items of supply of chlorpyriphos 20% E.C and its spray thereby violating the provisions of para 19.4.1 and 19.4.3 of CPWD Manual Vol. II (1988 Edition) according to which the chemical is to be procured ﬁrst and thereafter job of spraying of chemical is to be done separately through specialized forms duly approved by the Chief Engineer of the Zone. Issue of these directions by the said Shri S.H. Gondane, S.E., resulted in the purchase of the chemical by the Executive Engineer, Dewas Central Division at high rates. Article-II: Shri S.H. Gondane submitted wrong report to the Chief Engineer (CZ), Bhopal vide his No. 29(1)/97-ICC/1223 dated 27.8.1997 that the practice of clubbing together the items of purchase of the chemical required for anti-termite treatment as well as its spraying by call of tenders was being followed in Bhopal Central Circle, whereas no such practice was being followed in Bhopal Central Circle, Bhopal. Shri S.H. Gondane, Superintending Engineer, by his above acts of omission and commission, exhibited lack of devotion to duty, thereby contravening rule 2(1) (ii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” An enquiry Oﬃcer was appointed and he submitted a report on 29.9.2000, wherein both the charges were held as proved. The Tribunal after perusing the entire material on record, held that the disciplinary authority has taken into account the submissions of the applicant and on the advice tendered by the UPSC awarded the punishment of censure to the applicant and further held that there is no procedural irregularities at any stage in the inquiry, dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. It is not in dispute that the petitioner worked as Superintending Engineer (Civil) Indore Central Circle, Central, P.W.D., Indore from 8.9.1995 to 1.4.1998. It is also not in dispute that on the advice of the petitioner, the Executive Engineer purchased 20% chloropyriphos at the rate of Rs. 282/- per litre, whereas the market rate for the said item was very much on lower side. Thereafter, the ﬁrst respondent vide his memo dated 21.4.1999 proposed to hold an enquiry and the petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement in support of his defence. Charges were framed against the petitioner and Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries, was appointed to hold an inquiry in the matter. The Enquiry Oﬃcer submitted her report dated 29.9.2000 holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were proved and advised that the ends of justice would be met if the penalty of ‘censure’ be imposed on the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred O.A. and the Tribunal also held that the disciplinary authority has taken into account the submissions of the applicant and the advice tendered by the UPSC, and awarded the punishment of censure to the applicant. Hence, we see no procedural irregularity either at the stage of enquiry or at the stage of awarding punishment of censure to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED ,J ___________________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dt. 09.07.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi 110011. 2 The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi 110069. 3. Two CD copies.