THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION.Nos.17751 and 17752 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 26.08.2009 and inter alia, we had directed as under: “However, it is necessary to observe that keeping in view the prima facie involvement of large number of officers, starting with the Chief Engineer downwards, the matter requires urgent and serious attention by the Government and appropriate monitoring of this issue is warranted. Now that the individual allegations against each officer have been crystallized, we are of the opinion that the Government must act with utmost dispatch and appoint an enquiry officer, frame and communicate charges against individual officers without further loss of time and in any case, within a period of four weeks from today. The Government shall call for explanations to the said charges from the individual officers and hold a joint enquiry by appointing a senior officer of the rank of Engineer-in-Chief or any officer equivalent or above him, in view of the fact that the highest grade officer, involved in this enquiry was Chief Engineer. The disciplinary enquiry, as mentioned above, should be held and completed without unnecessary loss of time, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of issuance of charges against each officer as directed above and adequate opportunity shall be furnished to each officer to defend himself. The Government Pleader shall file a report on the action taken, as directed above, before this Court after every three months from today. The writ petitions are dismissed with directions as above. However, for filing of the report, as directed above, list the writ petitions after three months. No order as to costs.” 2. Thereafter, these cases were posted on 10.12.2010 for report on compliance of the above directions but on request of the learned Government Pleader we had adjourned the matter to 24.12.2010 and again on further request, beyond Sankranti Vacation, 2011. On 21.01.2011, again two weeks time was sought for, We expressed our displeasure that no steps have been taken by the respondent – State in spite of our observations in the order dated 26.08.2009, referred to above and in spite of granting sufficient time, again request was being made. We had finally granted further time to the learned Government Pleader up to 11.02.2011. 3. On 11.02.2011, the affidavit of the Joint Secretary to the Government was filed and after hearing the learned counsel and perusing the counter affidavit, we had recorded the following order: “We have perused the affidavit filed by the Joint Secretary to Government, I & CAD Department, on behalf of the Principal Secretary to Government, I & CAD and Engineer-in-Chief, I & CAD, seeking for extension of time for compliance of the order of this court dated 26.8.2009 for a further period of six months from 10.2.2011. This court dismissed Writ Petition Nos.17751 and 17752 of 2009 filed by Mr.D.Sudhakara Rao, Executive Engineer and Y.Dakshinamurthy, Joint Secretary, I & CAD, filed against the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, dismissing the O.As. filed by the writ petitioners questioning the suspension order of the Government pending enquiry. While dismissing the said writ petitions, we have noticed that the Government passed different suspension orders in GO Rt. Nos.1309 to 1338, I & CAD Department dated 3.8.2009 suspending thirty officers in view of serious allegations appearing against them causing extensive loss to the public exchequer. This court observed that now the individual allegations against each officer have been crystallised, the Government is directed to act with utmost dispatch and appoint an Enquiry Officer, frame and communicate charges against individual officers without further loss of time and in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of the order and complete the enquiry without any loss of time, within a period of six months from the date of issuance of the charges against the Officers. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners filed a miscellaneous petition complaining that though six months period is already completed for conducting enquiry, the petitioners are not reinstated into service pending enquiry. He also stated that some of the Officers have been reinstated selectively and, therefore, this court made an order on 21.1.2011 granting two weeks time to file report showing the status as per the order passed by this court in the writ petition, failing which both the Principal Secretary to Govt. I & CAD Department as well as the Engineer-in-Chief, I & CAD (Admn.Wing) shall appear before this court in person. As it was contended that some of the suspended officers have been reinstated selectively, this court required that the report shall also indicate the aspect of the officers so reinstated and the criteria, if any, for that process. This affidavit is filed by the Joint Secretary, seeking extension of time for completing the enquiry, stating that subsequent to the order of this court, articles of charges were framed and communicated to 33 officers on 31.10.2009 and the charged officers filed their written statements in defence on 28.12.2009. It is stated that the written statement of defence were examined in consultation with the Chief Technical Examiner (CTE) and the said CTE grouped the charged Officers into four categories depending upon the gravity of their involvement and observed that prima facie the officers who were grouped in category IV did not appear to be directly involved in recording excess quantities nor in recording of materials not received or antedating the recording. At this juncture, all the charged officers approached the Hon’ble Chief Minister for their reinstatement contesting the finding of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department. The Hon’ble Chief Minister directed a preliminary enquiry by the then Advisor to I & CAD Department (North Coast), Sri R.Satyanarayana, who carried out a site-inspection of the works and submitted his report confirming CTE’s view including the charge officers of category IV. The report was again circulated to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who ordered reinstatement of 12 accused Officers grouped in Category IV pending enquiry. It appears that the following 13 officers were reinstated on 20.5.2010 1) Sri K.Raja Sekhara Rao DEE, 2) Sri B.Sekhara Rao, DEE, 3) Sri S.Jagadeswara Rao, DEE 4) Sri A.Krushna Rao, DEE 5) Sri S.Gouri Prasad, AEE 6) Sri M.Ram Babu, AE 7) Sri S. Sai Kiran, AEE 8) Sri J.Purushottam Dora, AEE 9) Sri P.Chandramouli, AEE 10) Sri M.Satyam Naidu, AE 11) Sri G.Visweswara Rao Naidu, AEE 12) Sri M.V.Suresh Kumar, AEE 13) Sri M.Vasudeva Rao, AE In the meanwhile, some of the charge officers who were continuing under suspension, submitted another representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister requesting to reinstate them and that representation was referred to another Advisor to I & CAD Department (Rayalaseema) Sri T.S.Prakasa Rao, who appears to have submitted the report commenting on the observations of CTE as well as the report of Mr.R.Satyanarayana, Vigilance and Enforcement and the charges framed by the authorities and keeping in view the notings of the Minister for Major & Medium Irrigation at para No.228 of the note file, he has recommended for the revocation of the suspension order of the remaining officers. The Hon’ble Chief Minister having found the report of Mr. T.S. Prakasa Rao contradicting with the report submitted by Mr. R.Satyanarayana, referred the report of Mr. T.S.Prakasa Rao to be examined by a Committee of Secretaries. The Committee of Secretaries while recommending regular enquiry against the Govt. officials and action against the non-departmental persons, has suggested that the enquiry be completed within two months and ordered reinstatement of the remaining officers. Accordingly, the file was circulated to the Hon’ble Chief Minister as the original suspension orders were made after circulating the file to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The file is, thus, under circulation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. It is stated that out of the 33 charged officers, 13 are reinstated, 11 are continuing under suspension, 3 have expired and 6 have retired. After hearing both the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the writ petitioners and after examining the affidavit filed in support of the present application, we are of the prima facie opinion that the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Directorate is being watered down by repeatedly referring the issue for re-examination by different advisers to the Government and ultimately to the Committee of Secretaries. It is noteworthy that every authority by whom the re-examination was ordered, concurred with the view of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department that the charges are grave and serious. Even the affidavit filed in support of this application also accepts that prima facie this is a case of all the concerned officers involving in ‘outright dishonesty’, ‘extensive collusion’ and ‘criminal behaviour’. The affidavit also says that the charges are grave. However the recommendation for the reinstatement of the remaining officers appears to have been made by the Committee of Secretaries, but the decision of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is awaited. We are, prima facie, unable to appreciate as to how the different Advisers could sit in judgment over the report of the Vigilance and Enforcement Directorate, which is the basis for taking disciplinary and such other criminal action warranted on the basis of the said report. The said report, however, appears to have been attempted to be diluted by different Advisers, who were required to re-assess and re-examine the report of Vigilance and Enforcement Directorate. We have also noticed that when we endeavoured to monitor the present case as it involves financial irregularities to a huge extent and though we have fixed milestones for completion of the disciplinary enquiry, the Government appears to have chosen to act more on the representations of the employees rather than the order this court. We also found that the Government has appointed an Enquiry Officer only recently in GO Rt. No.20 Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VII(V&E-2) Department dated 10.1.2011 and the enquiry is yet to commence. Had the Government followed proceedings as per our order, enquiry would have been over long back, but it appears that Government was pursuing revocation of suspension of employees more seriously than order of this court. We are conscious of the jurisdiction of the Government to review/revoke suspension in the given facts and circumstances of the case, subject to the satisfaction of the Government. But in the present case we are, prima facie, of the opinion that the selective revocation and attempt to dilute the very charges, which according to the Government are grave, cannot be approved. We, therefore, desire and direct the learned Government Pleader to produce before us the entire file relating to the representations made by the employees after the order of this court in the writ petition, report submitted by the Chief Technical Examiner (CET), report of Mr. R.Satyanarayana, Adviser, I & CAD (North Coast), further representations of the employees and the report submitted by Mr. T.S.Prakasa Rao, Adviser, I & CAD (Rayalaseema) and yet another report submitted by the Committee of Secretaries, orders of revocation of the thirteen officers and the note files under which these presentations were circulated to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The above records be produced along with an affidavit by the Principal Secretary, I & CAD Department. Post on 25.02.2011” 4. Thereafter, on 25.02.2011, the records, as directed, were not produced and one more opportunity was sought for and granted. Thereafter, the matter came up on 25.03.2011 when the records along with the affidavit were produced and after hearing the learned counsel, orders were reserved. The respondents have produced original records containing volumes I, II, IV, V and VI. We have perused the records and it confirms our observations as made in the order dated 11.02.2011, extracted above. 5. The counter affidavit of the Principal Secretary to Government, I & CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 09.03.2011 contains the gist of the events, several irregularities and serious lapses noticed pertaining to Vamshadhara project in Srikakulam District, which had come to the notice V & E Department. The said V & E Department conducted preliminary enquiries and has recorded its conclusions of huge corruption in procurement of Screw Gearing Shutters. The Officers, who were found responsible in finalizing the price and procurement in the said enquiry, were identified as 33 officers, 2 stamp vendors and owners of firms (private players) who were responsible for submitting ante-dated agreements and managing higher rates with a view to defraud the Government. Based on the said report, 30 in-service officers were found, prima facie, involved in grave irregularities and charges were recommended to be proceeded against them and as a consequence, the Government in due consideration of the said report, suspended the said officers pending enquiry. 6. The batch of OA’s filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal were rejected confirming the suspension pending enquiry and two of the OA’s, which formed the subject of the writ petitions heard and dismissed of by us under our order dated 2.08.2009. 7. During the hearing of the said writ petitions, on the basis of the material produced before us, we have noted that loss to the tune of about Rs.55 crores is caused to the exchequer by the acts and omissions of officers, who were suspended pending enquiry and in order to safeguard the public interest, the suspension was found justified by the tribunal as well as by us. We had thereafter, given various directions, as extracted at the beginning of this order. 8. We were, however, surprised to notice that there was hardly any progress in the disciplinary enquiry inasmuch as not even an enquiry officer was appointed till 10.01.2011. Thus, it is evident that in spite of grave concern expressed by us in our order dated 26.08.2009 and laying down a time schedule of six months from the issuance of charge sheet for completing the enquiry, the respondent – State has, on the contrary, exhibited a lethargic and leisurely attitude and it has taken almost 1½ year only to appoint an enquiry officer and that too only after we started monitoring the progress from 10.12.2010. 9. The records produced also confirm our observations that the officers under suspension made several attempts by approaching the Hon’ble Chief Minister, who directed repeated reexamination of the vigilance report after articles of charge were issued to the individual officers and after receipt of the written statements in defence from the said officers. The notings in the record show that reconsideration was first ordered to be done through the Chief Technical Examiner of I & CAD Department, followed by another reexamination by Advisor, I & CAD Department (North Coast) and a further reexamination by Advisor, I & CAD (Rayalaseema). In addition to these repeated attempts of diluting the report of the Vigilance Department, the Hon’ble Chief Minister ordered to place the entire matter for further examination before the Committee of Secretaries and finally the recommendation to revoke the suspension of some of the officers was received and accordingly, a set of 12 officers, categorized as category IV, were, prima facie, found not involved and were reinstated. This gave rise to further hope to remaining officers also seeking reinstatement. The amount of paper work and time spent with a view to revoke the suspension of officers comprised of several volumes of records, which is referred to above. 10. A mere glance at the record produced shows that rather than any apparent anxiousness on the part of the State, this Court was more concerned about safeguarding public interest and curbing the menace of corruption by sustaining the suspension pending enquiry against all the officers. The State, on the contrary, does not appear to be serious of expeditious completion of disciplinary enquiry, notwithstanding the time schedule fixed by us but concentrating all its energies towards revoking the suspension orders of the officers involved. None of the Advisors or the Committee of Secretaries could have been invited to reexamine and record their comments against the vigilance report of the State, which is the basis for initiation of the disciplinary enquiry and which leaves us with a feeling that all these attempts were made only with an intention to dilute the charges at the cost of public interest and exchequer. 11. The counter affidavit shows that the files recommending revocation of suspension of the remaining officers are under circulation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister through the Hon’ble Minister (M & MI). Thus, except expressing deep regret in the counter affidavit for inability to implement the orders of this Court dated 26.08.2009, the State does not appear to be serious in going to the root of the several lapses, irregularities, tampering of records and corruption, as unearthed by the vigilance report. We had observed in our order dated 26.08.2009 that the complacency of the individual officers and the role played by them would be known and established only after a detailed enquiry. Notwithstanding the reluctance apparent on the part of the State, We are left with no alternative to issue the following directions: 1. The State shall forthwith and expeditiously proceed with the disciplinary enquiry by doing the needful follow up, as the articles of charge were already communicated and written statements in defence are filed and the enquiry officer is already appointed. Since the counter affidavit seeks six more months’ time to complete the enquiry, in view of the fact that more than sufficient time is already lapsed, at least now the State shall act and complete the enquiry within a period of three months from today. 2. The State shall not entertain any further request or pass any further orders with regard to revocation of suspension of any of the remaining officers till the disciplinary enquiry is completed. 3. We had also contemplated to revoke the reinstatement orders of 13 officers, who were listed under category IV and reinstated on 20.05.2010, but for the fact that they are not parties before us and that their complacency and involvement in these irregularities is said to be not as grave as other officers, We would direct that their reinstatement shall be subject to and shall abide by the result of the disciplinary proceedings with respect to other benefits. 4. We hope and trust that the State shall endeavour and respond to the situation by following these directions in letter and spirit. The Registry shall return the original records to the learned Government Pleader. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 8, 2011 DSK