IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No.6955 of 2010 Between: The Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and another .. Petitioners And Syed Javeed Akhtar and another .. Respondents ORDER: (per Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed assailing the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”) passed in O.A. No.7 of 2006, dated 15-12-2009, as being erroneous and contrary to law and praying to quash the same. 2. The facts, in brief, which led to filing of the writ petition are - Pursuant to the report of the General Administration (Vigilance Enforcement) Department, dated 06-02-1998 fixing responsibility on the 1st respondent herein and other officers in the Town Planning Wing for allowing commission of certain irregularities in regard to alteration of Master Plan in Kurnool Municipal Corporation by violating the building bye-laws and zonal regulations, the Government initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent and others, and framed charges against him vide orders issued in G.O. Rt. No.1146 M.A., Municipal Administration and Urban Development (E) Department, dated 14- 12-2001. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation to the said charges. However, the Government dissatisfied with the explanation, ordered for a thorough enquiry and appointed an Enquiry Officer vide U.O. Note, dated 09-10-2002. The Enquiry Officer having conducted the enquiry, in his report dated 29-03- 2003 held that all the eight charges framed against the 1st respondent are proved. Thereafter, notice was issued to the 1st respondent calling upon him to show cause as to why further action should not be taken against him based on the findings in the enquiry report. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation. However, not convinced by the explanation, the Government ordered imposition of punishment of 10% cut in his monthly pension permanently as per Rule 9(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and the orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No.254, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E1) Department, dated 31-03-2005. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed O.A. No.7 of 2006 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 15-12-2009 allowed the said O.A. Assailing the order of the Tribunal, the Government filed this writ petition. The learned Government Pleader submitted that a detailed enquiry was conducted against the 1st respondent as contemplated under Rule 20 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short “the CCA Rules”) by appointing an enquiry officer under Rule 20(2) thereof. The enquiry officer, considering the documentary evidence put forth before him, found that all the charges against the 1st respondent are proved. Based on the said enquiry report, and considering the nature of charges that stood proved against the 1st respondent, the Government imposed punishment of 10% cut in his monthly pension permanently, and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have set aside the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, merely on the ground that the enquiry was conducted not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under CCA Rules. He also contended that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer in exercise of powers of judicial review. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the enquiry conducted against the 1st respondent was not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under CCA Rules, as no evidence was let in against the 1st respondent and the findings of the enquiry officer are merely based on assumptions and presumptions. The learned counsel submitted that there must be evidence to link the charged officer with the misconduct alleged and the evidence, based on which the enquiry officer, held that the charges are proved against the 1st respondent, is neither relevant nor establishes misconduct alleged against the charged officer, and in such an event, the evidence collected, is no evidence in law. In support of this argument, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Sher Bahadur v. Union of India and others[1]. The learned counsel also submitted that the power of judicial review takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well, and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein only if the findings arrived therein are based on no evidence, and the findings arrived at are so, which could not have been arrived at by an ordinary prudent man or that the findings arrived at are perverse and based on assumptions, conjectures and presumptions. He submitted that in the absence of any evidence, findings recorded based on assumptions, conjectures and presumptions cannot be sustained. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in K. Bala Rama Raju v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another[2] (to which one of us is a party Hon’ble Sri Ghulam Mohammed) and hence, the contention that the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer in exercise of powers of judicial review, cannot be sustained. He submitted that out of six officers, including the 1st respondent, who were charged for the misconduct, already one of them was exonerated vide orders issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 753 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E1) Department, dated 09-10-2007. He further submitted that the imputation of charges is with regard to irregularities only and not with regard to involvement of any misappropriation and embezzlement of amounts. Therefore, he submits that no interference is called for with the order of the Tribunal. Heard the Government Pleader for Services-I and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The learned Government Pleader produced certain papers, relating to enquiry proceedings concerning the 1st respondent. A perusal of the same, would disclose that in one of his notes, dated 27-01-2003, the enquiry officer recorded as follows: “Case has taken up for further enquiry. P.O. is present. All COs. are present. P.O. presented brief and submitted official copies of document, copies of the note. Same is detained to COs. Documents have been perused by the C.Os. P.O. says that there are no witnesses to be examined. The list of documents by Government indicated as nil. Case adjourned to 03-02-2003 at 3.00 pm for further enquiry.” From the above, it is clear that no evidence whatsoever, either oral or documentary was placed by the Government before the Enquiry Officer. Though, Annexure-II to G.O.Rt.No.1146 M.A., dated 14-12-2001, discloses that some documents are enlisted, for sustaining the articles of charges framed against the 1st respondent, the fact remains, no discussion whatsoever about the said documents, does find place in the enquiry report. Thus, it is clear that the enquiry officer has based his findings on no evidence, much less without conducting proper enquiry. Therefore, the counsel for the 1st respondent is justified in contending that the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer against the 1st respondent is not in accordance with the procedure contemplated under CCA Rules. Since no procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, more particularly sub-rules 9 and 10 thereof, which are mandatory in nature, was followed in the conduct of enquiry proceedings by the Enquiry Officer, while upholding the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the imposition of punishment of 10% cut in the monthly pension of the 1st respondent herein permanently, we deem it appropriate to give liberty to the Government, if they so choose, to take appropriate action against the 1st respondent for the alleged irregularities, by conducting enquiry afresh, by following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of the CCA Rules. If the Government intends to conduct fresh enquiry, they may do so, as above, but they shall complete the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. If the Government initiates disciplinary proceedings afresh, the 1st respondent shall co-operate with the conduct of enquiry, within the time frame prescribed above. However, if the Government fails to complete the exercise within three months, as directed above, then they shall release all the pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-04-2010 Svv [1] (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 142 [2] 2009 (5) ALD 1 (DB)