THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 17743 of 2009 Date : 03.09.2009 Between: P.Dayakar …Petitioner And a.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd., rep., by its Managing Director, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. J.U.M.V.Prasad Counsel for the respondent : P.Udaya Bhaskara Rao Standing counsel for APSHCL THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.17743 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is working as Mandal In-Charge (MIC) in the office of the 1st respondent Corporation. While he was working at Rayaparthy Mandal as MIC, the Corporation issued a Circular dated 05.07.2007 calling upon the MICs to voluntarily disclose/inform all the irregular sanctions to the beneficiaries under the Indiramma Housing Scheme. The last date for such voluntary disclosure was initially fixed as 13.07.2009 and subsequently the same was extended to 25.07.2007. Accordingly the petitioner submitted the information on 23.7.2007. Thereafter, by order dated 20.09.2007 the petitioner was placed under suspension in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘CCA Rules, 1991’) alleging that the petitioner had committed grave mistakes and beneficiary payments to the tune of Rs.4,02,000/- to the 49 old and already constructed houses at Suryathanda Village under Indiramma 2006-07 Programme and that disciplinary proceedings are contemplated against him. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22401 of 2007. Initially this Court by order dated 25.10.2007 granted interim suspension making it clear that the same shall not preclude the respondents from proceeding with the enquiry and taking appropriate action as per law. Subsequently, after hearing the respondent Corporation, WP.No.22401 of 2007 was disposed of by order dated 28.04.2009 without expressing any opinion on merits and with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry within two months and to continue the petitioner in service till such time. It is not in dispute that subsequently by proceedings dated 29.12.2007 the article of charges together with list of documents and list of witnesses were communicated to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his written statement of defence within ten days. It is also not in dispute that by proceedings dated 23.11.2007 one A. Venkateswara Rao, Deputy Executive Engineer (H), Jangaon was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Subsequently by proceedings dated 25.07.2009 a new Enquiry Officer by name S. Vijaya Gopal, Special Officer (H), Warangal District has been appointed in the place of the earlier Enquiry Officer. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the said proceedings dated 25.7.2009 are arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Circular dated 5.7.2007 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is contended that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner itself is contrary to the Circular dated 5.7.2007 since Para 3 (c) of the said Circular guaranteed that there would be an amnesty on the MICs who voluntarily disclose the information of irregular cases and that no disciplinary action would be taken for irregular payments made, if any, for those houses. It is contended that basing on the said assurance the petitioner had made voluntary disclosure on 23.07.2007. However without any reference to the Circular dated 5.7.2007 and without considering the enclosures submitted by the petitioner under the Amnesty Scheme, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated illegally. Thus, according to the petitioners, the disciplinary proceedings being contrary to the assurance given under the Amnesty Scheme are illegal and liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the action of the respondents in not completing the enquiry which was initiated long back in the year 2007 in spite of the directions of this Court in W.P.No.22401 of 2007 and particularly the appointment of a new Enquiry Officer under the impugned proceedings dated 25.7.2009 after a long lapse of time is arbitrary and illegal. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Corporation, I do not find any substance in any of the above contentions raised by the petitioner. On a careful reading of the Circular dated 5.7.2007, I am unable to hold that the voluntary disclosure by the Mandal In-Charges was intended to protect even those employees who are facing allegations of misappropriation of the amount sanctioned under Indiramma Programme. As could be seen from the statement of articles of charges framed against the petitioner, dated 29.12.2007, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he had failed to do his legitimate official duties and thereby misappropriated the Government funds of Rs.4,02,000/- for his personal gains. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be held to be unwarranted or unjustified, much less the same can be held to be contrary to the Circular dated 5.7.2007. It is true that the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated in December, 2007, are still at the stage of the enquiry. However, the proceedings cannot be held to be illegal merely on the said ground particularly in the absence of any material to show that the Corporation alone is responsible for the said delay. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned disciplinary proceedings are illegal also on the ground that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer prior to framing of charges is contrary to Rule 20 of CCA Rules, 1991. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 20 of the CCA Rules, 1991, the question of appointment of the Enquiry Officer arises only when the disciplinary authority after considering the statement of defence submitted by the Government Servants decides to appoint an Enquiry Officer for conducting an enquiry. Hence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment of Enquiry Officer on 23.11.2007 even prior to the framing of the Articles of Charge vitiated the entire proceedings. I do not find any substance in the said contention also since admittedly the articles of charges against the petitioner were framed by the disciplinary authority himself. May be that the Enquiry Officer was initially appointed on 23.11.2007, however it is not the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer so appointed has proceeded with the enquiry even before the statement of defence was submitted by the petitioner. At any rate, now that a new Enquiry Officer has been appointed under the impugned proceedings dated 25.7.2009, the irregularity, if any, is cured. For the aforesaid reasons and particularly keeping in view the absence of any allegation that the alleged irregularity in the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority has caused any prejudice to the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner cannot be held to be vitiated on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, which is devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 03.09.2009 gbs