THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.23521 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Sri G.M,J) 1 This Writ Petition is filed assailing the validity and legality of the order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A.No.509 of 2009, the petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. 2 The facts, in brief, are that the respondent herein filed O.A.No.509 of 2009 before the Tribunal seeking to set aside the proceedings RC.No.1778/2007-M3 dated 04.04.2008 of the 2nd petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to APCS (CCA) Rules and subsequently to direct the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer in Zone –IV, without reference to the Charge Memo issued through proceedings dated 04.04.2008 of the 2nd petitioner and to set aside the proceedings Rc.No.1778/07-M3 dated 31.12.2008 of the 2nd petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the petitioners to consider his promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer in Zone IV from the date on which his juniors were promoted i.e. w.e.f.19.04.2008 with all consequential benefits. 3 The respondent was initially appointed as Forestor on 2.12.1983 and later promoted as Deputy Range Officer on 1.11.2001 and is fully qualified to be promoted as Forest Range Officer, but his case is not being considered on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him. The respondent further submitted that while he was working as Deputy Range Officer of Rayachoti Section, Kadapa Division, he was entrusted with additional charge of Vongimalla Section of Rayachoti division and he worked at that place from 1.1.2005 to 5.12.2006 and proceeded on medical leave for a period of two months from 6.12.2006 and on 15.2.2007 he reported before the Executive Officer, T.T.Devasthanam on deputation vide proceedings of the 1st petitioner dated 6.2.2007. While so, the 2nd petitioner placed the respondent under suspension on 10.10.2007 alleging that he has committed certain irregularities while working as Deputy Range Officer of Rayachoti Section and further alleged that the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa sent an investigation report to the 2nd petitioner alleging that the respondent and other forest officials have connived with some Red Sanders smugglers and helped them for monetary consideration. However, the respondent was reinstated into service on 7.7.2008 and he is presently working as Deputy Range Officer, Done Range, Kurnool Division. The 2nd petitioner through proceedings dated 5.5.2008 initiated disciplinary action against the respondent by framing articles of charge and the respondent submitted a detailed explanation to the same on 30.5.2008 denying the charges. The 2nd petitioner appointed an enquiry officer on 21.4.2008. The respondent submits that he requested the authorities to make available the relevant records for furnishing his explanation to the charge memo dated 4.4.2008, which the respondent received on 28.4.2008 while working at TTD Devasthanam. The respondent submits that the 2nd petitioner has appointed an enquiry officer even before the Articles of Charge was served on him and that the whole procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority is arbitrary and unjust and contrary to rules. 4 The petitioners filed counter affidavit denying the contention of the respondent that he is eligible for promotion inasmuch as the respondent was involved in red sandal smuggling causing loss to the Government to a tune of Rs.4,32,000/- and in that connection as he was awarded a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect having effect on pension and during the year 2008-09, the punishment is under implementation and as per G.O.Ms.No.968 dated 26.10.1995 whenever any Government employee is awarded the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, the cases of such employees shall not be recommended for promotion / appointment by transfer for twice the period for which the increments are stopped with cumulative effect, both for selection and non selection posts and hence his case for promotion as Forest Range Officer is not considered. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the enquiry was conducted and punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was awarded vide proceedings dated 31.12.2008, which is under implementation at the moment. He further submitted that the charge memo dated 4.4.2008 was issued and the District Forest Range Officer, Kadapa was appointed as enquiry officer and action was taken under CCCA Rules. The witnesses and documents relevant were made accessible to the respondent who did not cross examine them. After going through the rules / regulations in force and giving ample opportunity to the respondent the impugned orders were passed. 6 Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 7 As seen from the record it is clear that charges were framed against him on 4.4.2008 and the respondent received the charge memo on 28.4.2008 and he requested the petitioners on 30.4.2008 for supplying the relevant documents to give his explanation. The 2nd petitioner furnished the documents on 26.5.2008, but two documents i.e. 1) Collector’s report dated 6.11.2007 and 2) Statements of some other accused i.e. Sri Reddy Narayana and Sri Mahesh Naidu were not furnished to him. However, even before the charge memo served on the respondent on 28.4.2008 the enquiry officer was appointed on 21.4.2008. It is to be noticed that Sri Madduleti, the Forest Range Officer of Kadapa was appointed as Presenting Officer, who is none other than the complainant in the instant case, which would cause much prejudice to the respondent. The enquiry officer relied on the statements of the accused instead of examining the documents of the witnesses, which itself is against to the principles of natural justice. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent even before serving the charges and receiving the explanation of the respondent, the petitioner has appointed an enquiry officer on 21.4.2008 which is against to APCS (CCA) Rules. As seen from the material available on record, it is also clear that no regular enquiry was conducted and no documentary evidence was examined during the course of enquiry and hence the entire procedure is vitiated. The respondent had lost an opportunity to prove his innocence or otherwise in the matter. Hence, we do not see any material irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal in the said O.A. 8 Accordingly this Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ------------------------------ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:28.07.2011 ---------------------- G. CHANDRAIAH, J Kvsn