IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH 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 : 8373 of 2007 Between: G. Limbadri S/o. Poshanna, Gram Panchayat Dhanambanda Thanda, Dharpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Govt. of A.P., Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) Nizamabad. 3 The Asst. Project Director, DRDA Nizamabad & Supervising Officer, Nizamabad (Rural) Nizamabad District. .....RESPONDENTS 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, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari by calling the records and quashed the order dt. 12-3-2007 in OA No. 1900 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the A.P.A.T. Hyderabad conﬁrming the order of Removal by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj vide Appeal No. 3519/CPR & RE- B.2/2005 dt. 14-3-2006 conﬁrming the order of District Collector in proceedings No. 1526 of 2005 dt. 18-11- 2005 as arbitrary illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue panchayat Secretary in Nizamabad District. Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.MARIE DESAI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: (per GM,J) Aggrieved against the order dated 12.03.2007 passed in O.A.No.1900 of 2006 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the present writ petition is filed. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner, who was working as incharge Panchayat Secretary of Amrabad Thanda Gram Panchayat, was issued a charge memo dated 25.02.2005, on the ground of misuse of government rice and money, for which, he submitted an explanation denying the said allegations. After a detailed enquiry, the Enquiry Oﬃcer gave a report dated 07.07.2005 stating that the petitioner has misused the government rice and money yielding to the inﬂuence of local leaders and caused damage to the Government ISL programme. Based on the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.08.2005, for which he submitted a detailed explanation to the 3rd respondent- disciplinary authority on 29.08.2005. Thereafter, the impugned order of removal was passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector on 18.11.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and the same was rejected on 14.03.2006. Therefore, he ﬁled O.A.No.1900 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the same was also dismissed on 12.03.2007 conﬁrming the order of removal passed by the District Collector and the order passed by the lower appellate authority. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the initial enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice because no notice or opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce any evidence or to cross-examine the witnesses concerned. She further contended that the observations made by the Enquiry Oﬃcer were beyond the scope of the charges framed against the petitioner, and that those observations were only independent and general in nature. She further contended that the enquiry is vitiated and the report of the Enquiry Oﬃcer suﬀered from legal inﬁrmities because of noncompliance of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies (Classiﬁcation, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, the Rules,) and that the lower appellate authority as well as the Tribunal confirmed the same mechanically. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II though admitted non- compliance of Rule 20 of the Rules by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, but contended that the Enquiry Oﬃcer had conducted ﬁeld enquiry and submitted his report on the basis of the records. He further contended that based on the said report and also the admission of the writ petitioner in his explanation that he had issued rice and cash on the pressure of the President and MPTC, the lower appellate authority as well as the Tribunal conﬁrmed the same. He further contended that the petitioner was provided with ample opportunities to ﬁle his explanation to the charge memo, and also to the show cause notice issued pursuant to the enquiry report issued by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, and as such, the enquiry is not in violation of the principles of natural justice. He further contended that the lower appellate authority as well as the Tribunal had observed all legal obligations and conﬁrmed the order of removal passed against the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 25.02.2005 on account of certain serious irregularities in distribution of rice to beneﬁciaries under the Individual Sanitary Latrines (ISLs) Programme and cash. On submission of his explanation, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Oﬃcer gave his report dated 07.07.2005 holding that he has misused the government rice and money, yielding to the inﬂuence of local leaders, and caused damage to the Government ISL Programme. Based on the enquiry Oﬃcer’s report, a show cause notice was issued to him on 11.08.2005, for which he submitted his reply dated 29.08.2005. So, the question of non-issuance of notice to the petitioner before passing the order of removal, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not arise. Since the petitioner had admitted in his explanation that he had distributed rice and cash due the pressure of the President and MPTC and the Enquiry Oﬃcer also gave a ﬁnding after recording the statements of villagers that due to the inﬂuence of the local leaders he had distributed the rice, an opportunity of adducing evidence and cross- examining the witnesses concerned ought to have been given to the petitioner before issuance of the order of removal into service. Therefore, the impugned order of removal is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Apart from that, the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules, which fact also has been admitted by the learned Government Pleader. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned order of removal dated 18.11.2005 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated into service. It is open to the petitioner to make a representation to the Government or to the competent authority for regulating the period of service from the date of his removal i.e., 18.11.2005 to the date of reinstatement and the competent authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:25.09.2008 Note: Issue CC within one week. (Bo) sj ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Govt. of A.P., Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) Nizamabad. 3 The Asst. Project Director, DRDA Nizamabad & Supervising Officer, Nizamabad (Rural) Nizamabad District. 4.2CCs to the Government Pleader for Services-II, High Court Building, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. 2CD copies. Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}