IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 15644 of 2007 Between: 1 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, AP Hyderabad 2 The District Collector (panchayat Raj), Medak District at Sangareddy-502001 ..... PETITIONERS AND A.Purushotham, Village Development officer Mandal Parishad, Ramachandrapuram, Medak District at Sangareddy .....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 AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, passed in OA.No.5563 of 2000 dated 27.10.2005 as being erroneous illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same and pass appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent: MR. S.GOPAL RAO The Court made the following : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.15644 of 2007 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the orders, dated 27.10.2005, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.5563 of 2000 and to quash the same as erroneous, illegal and unreasonable. Heard both sides. In the aﬃdavit, ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is stated that in the departmental enquiry conducted against the respondent, out of ﬁve charges levelled against him, charges 1 and 3 were partly proved and accordingly, a show cause notice, dated 17.06.2000, was issued to him to explain as to why the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative eﬀect should not be imposed on him. After considering the reply, dated 01.07.2000, submitted by the respondent, proceedings vide No.B1/41/19/93, dated 16.08.2000, were issued by the second petitioner herein imposing the said punishment. Challenging the same, the said O.A. was ﬁled and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order in the O.A., the present writ petition is filed. The grounds on which the said O.A. was ﬁled by the respondent herein before the Tribunal that without framing any charges against him, as provided under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991, (for brevity ‘the Rules’), the Joint Collector and the Chief Executive Oﬃcer (FAC) Z.P., Medak at Sangareddy, the disciplinary authority, appears to have issued proceedings No.B1/4119/93, dated 17.07.1996, appointing the Executive Director, S.C. Corporation, Sangareddy, as an Enquiry oﬃcer to conduct departmental enquiry. It is provided under Rules 20 (4) of the Rules that the disciplinary authority shall frame the articles of charge, the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, and a list of documents and witnesses, by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained. The applicant had submitted a detailed explanation stating that he never committed any irregularity in sanctioning and disbursing the loans and prayed, to drop the proceedings. The Tribunal, following the judgment, dated 15.09.1999, rendered by a Division Bench of the Tribunal, in O.A.No.5262 of 1999, wherein it was held that since the charge memo was issued by the Enquiry Oﬃcer and not by the disciplinary authority as required under the A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant are vitiated and accordingly set aside the impugned order; allowed the said O.A. Learned Government Pleader contended that mere procedural irregularities do not vitiate the entire enquiry and it is for the charged oﬃcer to plead and establish what prejudice was caused to him. He further contended that since the respondent has fully participated in the enquiry proceedings, he cannot, now, turn round and question the correctness of the enquiry and seek to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules; that, as per the Rules, the disciplinary authority ought to have framed the charges, but, in the instant case, on the contrary, the enquiry oﬃcer has framed the charges and hence, prays to vitiate the entire enquiry. If the procedure, contemplated under sub-rules 1 to 5 of Rule-20 of the Rules, is not followed, it would vitiate the entire enquiry. In the instant case, without framing any charges against the applicant by the disciplinary authority, as provided under Rule 20 of the Rules, the disciplinary authority i.e., the Joint Collector and Chief Executive Oﬃcer (FAC) Z.P., Medak at Sangareddy, appears to have issued proceedings No.B1/4119/93, dated 17.07.1996, appointing the Executive Director, S.C. Corporation, Sangareddy, as an Enquiry Oﬃcer to conduct departmental enquiry. Accordingly, the Enquiry Oﬃcer issued charge memo, without any statement of allegations, and the disciplinary authority shall have to frame articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, and a list of documents and witnesses, by which, each article of charge is proposed to be sustained. Admittedly, the respondent had participated in the enquiry by submitting detailed explanation to the charge memo. However, since the charge memo was issued by the Enquiry Oﬃcer and not by the disciplinary authority, as required under the Rules, and since the Tribunal had given cogent and convincing reasons, for passing the impugned order, we are of the view that the proceedings of the second petitioner herein, dated 16.08.2000, which were impugned before the Tribunal, are not sustainable and that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent herein are vitiated and that, the Tribunal had rightly set aside the same. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, without costs. However, we make it clear that this order does not preclude the competent authority to take action against the respondent, as per law. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED _____________________________ JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD 15th September 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 2CCs to GP for Services-II, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. (OUT) 2 2CD copies