IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 16189 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Secretary, General Administration (I & PR) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Commissioner, Information and Public Relations Department, A.C.Guards, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND V.Subhash, Working as Joint Director, I & PR Department, O/o. the Commissioner, Information and Public Relations Department, A.P.Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P.Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.5103/2007 dated 12.03.2008 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent : MR.R.V.MALLIKARJUNA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER:: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.16189 OF 2008 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled by the State represented by Secretary, General Administration (I & PR) Department, Hyderabad, and another against the order dated 12-3-2008 passed in OA No.5103 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The applicant-respondent herein ﬁled the said OA No.5103 of 2007 challenging the order passed in GO Ms.No.617, dated 20-8-2007 imposing the punishment of reversion from the post of Joint Director to the next lower category i.e. Dy. Director on permanent basis. 2. The facts stated are:- Based on the report of the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant on the ground that while he was working as Dy. Director (I&PR) (presently working as Joint Director) in Zone VI, during the selection to the posts of cine-operators done between 1992-1994, he has involved in corrupt and malpractices, thus exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and such conduct is unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby contravened the APCS Conduct Rules, 1964. It is stated that, pursuant to the charges framed, the applicant submitted his explanation. Having not satisﬁed with the explanation, an enquiry oﬃcer was appointed vide GO Rt. No.6119, dated 28-10-2005. The enquiry oﬃcer after conducting enquiry, submitted enquiry report holding the charges alleged against the applicant as proved. The Government after considering the enquiry report and the representation submitted by the applicant on the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer, imposed the punishment of reversion from the post of Joint Director to the next lower category i.e. Dy. Director on permanent basis. 3. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the OA. The operative portion of the order reads thus: “Against the allegation of corruption and malpractices, it cannot be held that the said allegation has been proved as nowhere in the enquiry report, evidence has been adduced in support of this allegation of corruption and malpractices. Therefore, in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Bahadur vs. Union of India reported in (2007) SCC 142 and in the case of MV Bijlani vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 and submitted that the applicant alone cannot be found fault with for the selection conducted by the entire Selection Committee to which he was a Convenor and particularly when other members of the Selection Committee have stated that no wrong practice was adopted during the selection process and none was inﬂuenced by the anyone while allotting the marks. Under these circumstances, it is not known as to how the enquiry oﬃcer was reluctant to believe the testimony of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses which are relevant for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion. No reasons were recorded by the enquiry oﬃcer for disbelieving the testimony of the witnesses deposing in favour of the applicant. Therefore, the ﬁndings of the enquiry oﬃcer that the charge was proved was erroneous and without any evidence to link the applicant with the alleged indulgence in corruption and malpractices in the recruitment of Cine Operator posts. The prosecution witnesses who have been examined have categorically stated that in the respective depositions that they have not found any malafide intention on the part of the applicant. That apart no speciﬁc allegation has been stated with reference to the distance of speciﬁc charge relating to the failure omission or commission relating to the corruption and malpractice as alleged in the charge memo. Farming a bald charge without mentioning the speciﬁed instance of the irregularity cannot stand to judicial scrutiny. It is also strange to notice that only the applicant was singled out and disciplinary proceedings were initiated when the selection process was conduced by the entire committee collectively. In regard to the suspicion about over writing with pen on the pencil marks, the enquiry report also discloses that the marks were tentatively given ﬁrst in pencil and then conﬁrmed in pen as per the statements of other Selection Committee Members. The applicant cannot be held responsible for this. The investigating Oﬃcer from ACB has also stated that no beneﬁciary/candidate has complained about paying money to the applicant. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the enquiry report has been prepared based on surmises and conjectures. For the aforementioned reasons and having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Bahadur vs. Union of India reported in (2007) SCC 142 and in the case of MV Bijlani vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88, the enquiry report is unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned orders issued in GO Ms.No.617, dated 20-8- 2007 based on an erroneous enquiry report are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Bahadur vs. Union of India reported in (2007) SCC 142 and in the case of MV Bijlani vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88. The OA is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the VMA is dismissed.” 4. Heard the Learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order. 5. Though it is contended by learned Government Pleader for Services-II that the punishment imposed on the respondent preceded by issuance of a charge memo and appointment of an enquiry oﬃcer for the irregularities committed by him in the selection process of cine operators, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, there is no speciﬁc instances of omissions and commissions said to have been committed by the applicant-respondent in the selection process of cine operators, being the Convenor of the said Selection Committee. Admittedly, the selection committee consists of four members, besides the applicant-respondent herein as Convenor, and it appears, the applicant alone has been singled out for the alleged lapses committed in the selection of cine operators. It is also on record that the prosecution witnesses deposed nothing adverse against the applicant and they stated that they were not aware of the corruption or money transaction taken place between the applicant and the beneﬁciaries/candidates who got jobs. Even the investigating oﬃcer examined from ACB also deposed that none of the candidates who got jobs, examined by him, have stated to him that they paid any amount for getting the job as cine operator to the applicant. Considering this evidence and also in view of decisions of the Supreme Court in Sher Bahadur vs. Union of India and MV Bijlani vs. Union of India, the Tribunal allowed the OA, which in the facts and circumstances do not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. In the circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated: 11-8- 2008 Nrg ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}