THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20506 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Heard Sri.Shiva representing the learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of the respondent. The writ petition is filed by the State, directed against the Judgement dt. 29.9.2006 of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) allowing O.A.No. 1164 of 2003 preferred by the 1st respondent and on her demise, her legal representatives who came on record. The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the 1st respondent/State in G.O.Ms.No. 12 Social Welfare (SW.Ser.II.2) Department dt. 15.2.2003 whereby and whereunder in purported exercise of powers under Rule 25 (ii) and Rule 26 (2) of the A.P. Civil Services (CC &A) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the 1991 Rules) and after consultation with the A.P. Public Service Commission, an order of dismissal of the applicant from service from the post of Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department was imposed. The deceased applicant was serving at Hyderabad as Deputy Director of Social Welfare Department during 1994 to 2002 and she was alleged to have been involved in a criminal conspiracy with other employees of the Department, employees of the Pay and Accounts Office, bank officials and others, to embezzle large amounts of Government funds meant scholarships for poor students belonging to Scheduled Caste. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the deceased is alleged to have been involved in floating of bogus documents and creating forged bills and to have embezzled scholarships to a tune of several crores of rupees and caused loss to the public exchequer. Cr.No. 134 of 2002 was registered against the (deceased) applicant and others under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and a charge sheet was also filed. During the pendency of trial, the 1st petitioner/State exercised power purportedly under Rules 25 and 26 of the 1991 Rules and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, on the applicant. The reasons recorded for dispensing with the procedural prescriptions pertaining to major departmental inquiry mandated under the 1991 Rules is set out in G.O.Ms.No. 12 dt. 15.2.2003 (the order impugned before the Tribunal) as under: Since the prosecution is being launched in the criminal court against her and the other accused it is not possible to initiate disciplinary action against her as the relevant documents/records required for the purpose of disciplinary action against her cannot be made available by the investigating agency as they have to be filed in the court in the Criminal proceeding against them and further since the misconduct committed by her is a part of the criminal conspiracy between her and the other accused there is no other alternative except to wait till the criminal proceedings are concluded which will take a considerably long time, in view of the voluminous oral and documentary evidence to be adduced before the court. Smt.M.Shambhavi and her co-conspirators being responsible government servants expected to uphold the government policies and protect the interest of the Government have indulged in anti-government and anti-people activities and deliberately and dishonestly flouted the various government orders, rules, instructions given from time to time and embezzled several crores of government funds intended for the benefit of the poor students belonging to SC/ST and BC communities, which has very much affected the administration in the concerned government department in the implementation of the progressive policies of the Government. The mere suspension of Smt.M.Shambhavi does not have impact on her since she is not at all dependant on the subsistence allowance being paid to her by the government, which is a further loss to the Government, and on the other hand she continues to be a Government Servant and enjoys all the privileges which a suspended Government servant is entitled to as per the Rules. In a case of this nature involving grave misconduct and moral turpitude of great magnitude, paying subsistence allowance from the public exchequer without taking prompt disciplinary measures is neither in public interest nor public good and it will be construed as a sign of delinquent on the part of the Government and will encourage the activities without any hindrance and the exigencies of the situation require dispensing with the inquiry and straightaway impose a penalty on her. Continuation of Smt.M.Shambhavi wh is involved in the large scale fraud which has become a public scandal, would be detrimental to the discipline and against public interest. The fraud committed by Smt.M.Shambhavi and the other accused in the criminal case has reduced the faith of the people in the administrative machinery and with such dishonest persons remaining in Government service there is little hope of any progress of economic and social development and a situation has arisen and immediate action is called for in order to restore the public confidence in the administration of the State and to protect the prestige and reputation of the Government. The Tribunal on a careful and critical analysis of the provisions of Article 311 and Rules 25 and 26 of the 1996 Rules and the facts and circumstances; the allegations of misconduct against the applicant; and the reasons recorded for dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry; and on a cogent analysis of the relevant binding precedents in the area rightly came to the conclusion that the reasons recorded for dispensing with the due process of inquiry are irrational and that no case was made out by the State to eschew the departmental enquiry; and accordingly quashed the orders in G.O.Ms.No. 12 dt. 15.2.2003. The law is declared in several binding precedents including in Union of India vs. Tulsiram Patel[1] and the decision of the apex court i n Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union of India[2] which explicated the essential principle of fairness that the audi alteram partem rule being flexible and adaptable, the concept of natural justice cannot be eschewed ipso facto and without compelling reasons for doing so. In the case on hand, neither the pendency of prosecution of the deceased applicant nor the gravity of the allegations made against her are germanane grounds to eschew the due process of enquiry as rightly concluded by the learned Tribunal For the aforesaid reasons, we discern no justification to interfere with the impeccable order of the Tribunal dt. 29.9.2006 in O.A.No. 1164 of 2003. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed at the stage of admission but in the circumstances without costs. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J _____________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 08.12.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 20506 of 2011. ORDER: (Per Goda Raghuram, J) Dt. 08.12.2011. [1] AIR 1984 SC 1416. [2] AIR 1981 Sc 818.