THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.16838 of 1999 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to and connected with proceedings No.CE/5094/97-98 dated 9.3.1998 of the Respondent-University as confirmed in office order No.A2/709/S/99 dated 31.7.1999 of the office of Chancellor of the University and quash or set aside the decision contained therein with all consequential benefits. According to the petitioner, he was posted as Assistant Registrar in the examination branch of the respondent-University with effect from 16.11.1990 and worked in that capacity till 11.12.1991 and then was transferred to the Engineering Department. While that being so, an order of suspension dated 6.11.1992 was served on him stating that a preliminary report was submitted by the enquiry committee constituted to enquire into tampering of marks in the tabulation register, as there was a prima facie case against the petitioner. Petitioner was also served with a memo on earlier occasion on 2.12.1992 by the Convenor of enquiry committee to appear before the said committee and he was questioned by the committee. Immediately after suspension, petitioner had addressed a letter to the Registrar on 4.12.1992 requesting him to furnish a copy of enquiry committee report, but the same was not supplied. Further, he received a memo dated 26.4.1993 from the Director of Academic and Planning in the capacity as Enquiry Officer. The said memorandum contained the statement of articles of charge, a statement of imputation of misconduct in support of articles of charge and a list of documents. Petitioner was called upon to submit explanation to the said charge within 10 days. Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation, however, the enquiry officer conducted farce of an enquiry and submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. Thereafter, petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 4.12.1993 calling for explanation as to why he should not be removed from service on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer. Since the preliminary enquiry committee report was not furnished, petitioner questioned the very show cause notice by way of filing Writ Petition No.998 of 1994 before this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed on 18.6.1997 and even the Writ Appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed. After dismissal of W.P.No.998 of 1994, petitioner filed a detailed explanation on 30.6.1997 touching various aspects of the issue and alternative plea of gravity of punishment, but that was not considered by the disciplinary authority in proper perspective and by proceedings dated 9.3.1998, he was informed of the decision of Executive Council for imposing following punishments: 1. Reversion to the post of Superintendent; 2. Withholding of promotion till all juniors as on date are promoted; 3. Treating the period of suspension as not on duty; and 4. Restricting the monetary benefits during suspension period to the extent of subsistence allowance already paid. Therefore, petitioner had to join as Superintendent. Further, to suffer of humiliation, he was posted to OTRI, as a measure of punishment. However, petitioner submitted a review petition against the punishment imposed. Since there was no response, he had submitted a statutory appeal to the Chancellor of the University on 22.9.1998 raising several grounds. There was no reply for a long time and in the meanwhile, several of his juniors were promoted as Assistant Registrars and Deputy Registrars. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner was not disposed of, he filed Writ Petition No.11295 of 1999 and this Court while admitting the writ petition on 9.7.1999, granted interim direction directing the Chancellor to dispose of the appeal without reference to the delay in submitting the appeal. In pursuance of the same, the Chancellor passed orders rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the orders passed by the Executive Council. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that enquiry officer cannot frame charges and ask for explanation under CCA and Conduct Rules which are applicable to respondent-University. The disciplinary authority must frame a charge and call for explanation and after receiving explanation, if the disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the explanation offered by the delinquent officer, then only an enquiry officer will be appointed. In this case, the respondent has not followed the CCA and Conduct Rules. Learned counsel further states that petitioner was not furnished with the report of the preliminary enquiry committee and he was not given proper opportunity to defend himself. The charges were not proved and there was no evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of charge. Assuming, the charge which is trivial in nature, was proved, the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged. Further, various punishments have been imposed on the petitioner, which are neither enumerated in the Conduct Regulations nor there is any provision to impose multiple punishments for a misconduct under a single charge sheet. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for Respondent supported the order passed by the respondent-University and submitted that tampering of marks in the tabulation register is a grave misconduct and the same has been proved and there is any amount of evidence to establish the same. Once the charge is grave, in fact petitioner ought to have been dismissed from service, however a lenient view was taken by the Executive Council to impose punishment of reversion and taking last rank in the reverted post and treating the period of suspension as not on duty and restricting monetary benefits during the suspension period to the extent of subsistence allowance. The punishment imposed can neither be said to be arbitrary nor disproportionate to that of the misconduct. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for respondent relied upon the decisions in HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR v. SHIRISH KUMAR RANGRAO PATIL AND ANOTHER[1] and PANKAJESH v. TULSI GRAMIN BANK AND ANOTHER[2]. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. At the outset, I am of the opinion that the enquiry was not properly conducted by giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by furnishing all the documents required by him, which was relied upon in the enquiry. 1. Petitioner asked for a copy of the preliminary enquiry committee report, on the basis of which charge sheet was framed, however the same was not furnished. The learned counsel for respondent except saying that there is no necessity of furnishing the same since it was only a preliminary report. May be so, if the said document is not relied upon by the respondent for any purpose, there is no necessity of furnishing the same. But in this case, the basis for the very charge sheet is the preliminary enquiry report. Therefore, non-furnishing of such document is in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Admittedly, CCA and Conduct Rules as applicable to the State Government employees mutatis-mutandis are applicable to the employees of University. The Regulation contemplates framing charges by the disciplinary authority initially and to call for an explanation from the delinquent officer as per Rule 20 of CCA and Conduct Rules. In this case, such a procedure was not followed and on the other hand, directly an enquiry officer was appointed as if the explanation was called for and submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Admittedly, the enquiry officer has no authority to frame charges. However, learned counsel for respondent stated that charges were framed on the basis of preliminary enquiry committee recommendations. Therefore, there is no necessity of further framing charges by the disciplinary authority and asking for explanation and then proceeding with the matter. This approach made by the Respondent is contrary to Rules and is arbitrary and illegal. 3. There was only one charge sheet. The Executive Council of the University has imposed multiple punishments for the misconduct. The petitioner was reverted to a lower post and that he was to take last rank in the reverted post and that during the period of suspension, he was not entitled for full salary etc. In fact, major penalties, which can be imposed by the disciplinary authority, are enumerated in Rule 20 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, which reads as under: “Procedure for imposing major penalties: (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 shall be made except after an enquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this Rule and Rule 21 or in the manner provided by the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 or the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta Act, 1983, where such inquiry is held under the said Acts. (2) …………………………….. (3) ……………………………… (4) The Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government Servant a copy of the 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 and copies of the said documents and statements of the said witnesses and shall require the Government Servant to appear before the Disciplinary Authority on such day and at such time not exceeding ten working days and submit a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. (5) (a) On the date fixed for appearance, the Government Servant shall submit the written statement of his defence. The Disciplinary Authority shall ask the government servant whether he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charges, the Disciplinary Authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government Servant thereon. The disciplinary authority shall record findings of guilty in respect of those articles of charge to which the Government Servant pleads guilty. Where the Government servant admits all the articles of charge, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each article of charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 21. (b) Where the Government Servant appears before the Disciplinary Authority and pleads not guilty to the charges or refuses or omits to plead, the Disciplinary Authority shall record the plea and obtain signature of the Government Servant thereon and may decide to hold the inquiry itself or if it considers necessary to do so appoint an Inquiring Authority for holding the inquiry into the charges and also appoint a Government Servant or a retired Government Servant or a legal practitioner as Presenting Officer to present the case in support of the articles of charge and adjourn the case to a date not exceeding five days”. The respondent has committed several irregularities, as noticed above, in conducting the enquiry. Therefore, the very enquiry conducted by the respondent is not valid. The respondent should have imposed on the petitioner with a punishment of reversion from the post of Assistant Registrar to that of Superintendent or with any other punishment, but imposing punishment of reversion with further punishment of taking last rank in the Superintendent category and that unless and until all of his juniors are promoted, petitioner shall not be considered for promotion seems to be unreasonable. Such punishment is shockingly disproportionate to that of the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Apart from that, the rules do not contemplate imposing such multiple punishments. For all the reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Generally, in a case of this nature, for imposing any lesser punishment, the matter needs to be remanded to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration. But it appears that during the pendency of writ petition, petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation has retired from the service of Respondent-University. Under these circumstances, conducting fresh enquiry and taking further decision may not be desirable. The litigation needs to be given a quietus at this stage itself. Since some misconduct is alleged against the petitioner, merely the enquiry was not properly conducted, petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot-free. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent-University is directed to treat that as if the petitioner retired from the post of Assistant Registrar and settle all his retiral benefits treating him as such. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any further promotion from the post of Assistant Registrar and is not entitled for any back wages, except for the increments notionally in the cadre of Assistant Registrar from the date of reversion till the date of retirement. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 10.8.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.16838 of 1999 10.8.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.16838 of 1999 Date: 10th August, 2010 Between: K.V.Rama Krishnan .. Petitioner And Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Mahaveer Marg, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar. .. Respondent [1] (1997) 6 SCC 339 [2] (1997) 7 SCC 68