HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.30771, 30952, 31006, 31057 and 31141 of 2010 Date:28.02.2011 Between : V. Sattaiah and others. ….Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department & others. ….Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.30771, 30952, 31006, 31057 and 31141 of 2010 COMMON ORDER : As the relief sought for in all these writ petitions is similar and the grounds raised for grant of such relief are also similar, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order, at the stage of admission. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as referred in W.P.No.30771 of 2010. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings in F.I.R. Rc.No.10/ACB-HR/99, dated 22.10.1999, on the file of the 2nd respondent and the consequential charge sheet filed in C.C.No.9 of 2007 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as arbitrary, irrational and is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 31 of the Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 24 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 04.06.1991 in the Department of Employment and Training and was posted in Government I.T.I., Bhongir in Nalgonda District. On the information that the petitioner, along with the Principal of the said college have committed several irregularities in purchase of articles and other material for stores of the said Government I.T.I. during the year 1997 and thus misappropriated the funds allotted to the said institute, surprise checks were conducted by the officers of the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Wing, Warangal, during the year 1998. The inspecting authorities prepared inventory of the articles of the stores and as there was some prima facie material for a case of criminal misconduct, a case was registered in Crime No.10/ACB-HR/1999 against one B.Rama Murthy, Principal of the college and the petitioner herein, who was working as Junior Assistant at that point of time. After conducting investigation into the aforesaid crime, on the ground that the petitioner and the Principal by name B.Rama Murthy have purchased material worth Rs.43,65,292.50 ps., for the stores of I.T.I. during the year 1997-98 from certain Firms at the rates more than the maximum retail price and caused wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.39,38,496/- and wrongful gain for themselves and also paid certain amounts for the material, which was not actually received, the petitioner along with the Principal, were charged for the offences under Sections 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B r/w.34 of I.P.C. On filing the charge sheet, the same was numbered as C.C.No.9 of 2007 and the trial has commenced. When most of the prosecution witnesses are examined and the matter is posted for examination of the investigating officer, this writ petition is filed. 4. In this writ petition, it is contended by Sri S.Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners, that some persons against whom similar charges were framed, were referred to departmental inquiry and certain cases were referred to the Commissioner of Inquiries and only 26 cases were referred to ACB, including the case of the petitioner. The learned counsel pleads that there is discrimination among the similarly placed persons and there is no valid reason for referring the case of the petitioner to ACB. It is submitted that most of the persons whose cases were referred for departmental inquiry, have approached the A.P.Administrative Tribunal and obtained stay orders, and the rest of the candidates whose cases were referred to the departmental inquiry, were exonerated after conducting such inquiry, and the cases which are referred to the Commissioner of Inquiries, were disposed of by imposing minor penalties like stoppage of 10% pension or stoppage of two increments etc. It is submitted that out of about 25 cases, which were referred to ACB, 19 were disposed of imposing major penalty of removal from service, apart from imposing the sentence of imprisonment. It is submitted that when appeals are filed against the said removal orders, this Court suspended the sentence of imprisonment, but did not grant any interim orders with regard to continuance of their service. It is submitted by the learned counsel that though the petitioner is on same footing as that of the other persons against whom no proceedings were initiated before ACB, he is being discriminated by referring his case to ACB. It is further submitted that the trial Court, without looking into the charges in detail, passed common orders in all the cases without examining the role of the individual accused in the aforesaid crimes. 5. Both the respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. In the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the charge memo was issued to the petitioner in the year 2001 and after completion of investigation, the 2nd respondent issued notice on 17.06.2000, calling upon the petitioner to offer his explanation, if any, and pursuant to the same, an explanation was given by the petitioner, and after considering such explanation, a report was submitted to the Government through the office of the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, seeking sanction for prosecution. It is stated that after obtaining sanction, charge sheets were filed before the Court. With regard to other cases, which were referred to departmental inquiry and Commissioner of Inquiries, it is stated that the ACB has no role to play in that regard and a decision has to be taken by the Government. It is stated that in total, 26 cases were referred to ACB, into which, a detailed investigation is conducted and in all the 26 cases, permission for prosecution was obtained and charge sheets were filed. Counter further states that out of the 26 cases, in 19 cases, charges were proved and they were convicted and other cases including the case of the petitioner, are pending trial and examination of prosecution witnesses is almost completed, except one or two. With reference to the allegation against the petitioner, it is stated that the Principal of the college and the petitioner have purchased the material worth Rs.43,65,292.50 ps., required for the stores during the year 1997-98 at the rates higher than the maximum retail price noted on the articles, and thus, caused wrongful loss to the Government. It is also averred that the petitioner and the Principal of the I.T.I has paid an amount of Rs.9,20,661/- for the materials which were not at all received. While stating that there is substantive evidence to prove the role of the petitioner, it is pleaded that though the case was numbered in the year 2007, the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage, seeking quashing of the case. Pleading that there are no grounds for grant of relief sought for, at this stage, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Similarly, in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, referring to the batch of cases registered against the petitioner, it is stated that all the petitioners in these writ petitions are working in the Industrial Training Institutes, which are under the administrative control of the Principal Secretary, Labour Employment and Training Department and that the Principal Secretary, Home Department is not concerned with the subject matter. 7. With reference to the averments in the counter affidavits, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent that in about 19 similar set of cases, the accused were already convicted and in case of the petitioner, when the trial is at advanced stage, he has approached this Court only to scuttle the legal process. It is contended that in the absence of making the employer as a party-respondent to the writ petition, it is not open for the petitioner to plead any discrimination. It is submitted that though the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has ordered for imprisonment and consequential removal from service without examining the role of accused, the same cannot be the ground to quash the proceedings at this stage. Similarly, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent submits that though the petitioners are employees of the Labour Employment and Training Department, the Secretary of the said department is not even made party-respondent to this writ petition, in the absence of which, it is not open for the petitioner to plead discrimination. 8. In this case, it is to be noted that noticing certain irregularities in purchase of material for stores in various Institutes, inspections were made by the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Wing, Warangal, and crimes were registered as early as in 1999 and final reports were filed in 2007, and the petitioners have participated in the trial without raising any objection, at any point of time, and at the verge of completion of prosecution evidence, these writ petitions are filed. The relief sought for in these writ petitions is mainly based on discrimination. Although the petitioners are employees of the Labour Employment and Training Department, the said employer is not made party- respondent to these writ petitions. These writ petitions are filed by merely impleading the Scretary, Home Department and the Inspector of ACB. From the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is clear that 26 cases were referred to ACB and in all the 26 cases, after completing investigation, charge sheets were filed and in 19 cases, judgments were already delivered by Special Court, convicting the accused therein. In the absence of the employer being made party-respondent, this Court will not be in a position to know as to why all the cases were not referred to ACB. The learned counsel for petitioner has referred to certain material, stating that for similar set of charges in certain cases, only departmental proceedings were initiated, and in some cases, matters were referred to the Commissioner of Inquiries, and basing on the reports of such authorities, orders were passed. Merely on the ground that all the cases are not referred to ACB for the purpose of criminal prosecution, petitioners cannot plead discrimination at this stage, on the ground that it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As much as the petitioners have not raised any protest even though the charge sheets were filed in the year 2007, they cannot seek for quashing of the proceedings in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, on the verge of completion of evidence on prosecution side. The further grounds, namely, that the trial Court has ordered conviction without examining the role of the individual accused, is also not a ground to interfere at this stage. The learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Astamija Dash[1], in which, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Punjab National Bank, being a State, is bound to follow the equality clause contained under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. But, whether there is any discrimination or not in a given case, is a matter to be examined with reference to the facts and circumstances of such case. Merely because all the matters were not referred to ACB, by itself, is no ground to accept the discrimination, so as to grant the relief as prayed for. In the absence of the employer being made party-respondent, it is not known as to why the other cases are not referred to ACB, while referring only 26 cases out of a total of 105. As the petitioners did not place any material before this Court to accept the discrimination as pleaded, I do not find any ground to admit these writ petitions for grant of relief at this stage. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28th February 2011 ajr [1] (2008) 14 SCC 370