IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No: 11805 of 2008 Between: 1 The Government of A.P Rep by its Principal Secretary, Health Medical & Family Welfare (VC.II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Health, Sultan Bazar, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Dr.K.Madhukar Varma, Senior Medical Officer, Sample Survey cum Assessment Unit (Leprosy) (Retired), Warangal, R/o. 5-8-50, Laskar Bazar, Hanamakonda, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dated 18-12-2007 in O.A.No.3096/2007 with VMA No.494/2007 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administration Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside he same by holding as eroneous and contrary to law and erroneous and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORDER: (PER GM,J) This writ petition is ﬁled by the State seeking to quash the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3096 of 2007 with VMA No.494/2007 dated 18-12-2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. On receipt of two anonymous complaints along with press clippings of certain daily news papers containing allegations of corruption, misappropriation and malpractice against the District Leprosy Oﬃcer, Khammam and his staﬀ, the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta suo motu took up the same as a complaint, got investigated into the matter, identiﬁed the respondent and 8 other oﬃcials as responsible and sent a report to the Government to that eﬀect. After examining the report of the Lokayukta, the Government have issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.783, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (VC.II) Department, dated 27-08-2002 placing the respondent under suspension and directing the 2nd petitioner to take disciplinary action in respect of other staﬀ as per G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 08-08-2002. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred O.A.No.456/2006 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. By the order dated 07-07-2006 in O.A.No.456/2006, the Tribunal directed the petitioners herein to reinstate the respondent herein into service pending further orders. Subsequently, orders reinstating the respondent pending disciplinary action against him were issued vide G.O.Rt.No.1451, Health Medical & Family Welfare (VC.II.2) Department, dated 18-11-2006. In view of the amendment to Rule 27 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classiﬁcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short – ‘the 1991 Rules’) the Government initiated disciplinary action against the respondent by issuing a show cause notice and furnishing enquiry report of the A.P. Lokayukta instead of framing charges separately and conducting inquiry under Section 21 of the Rules. The respondent ﬁled his explanation accordingly. The Government examined the explanation submitted by him with the available records and, as the explanation was not convincing, decided to impose a major penalty under Rule 9 of the 1991 Rules against him but the same is yet to be issued. It is stated that the respondent had retired from service on 30-11-2007. Aggrieved by the pendency of the proceedings against him even after retirement, the respondent ﬁled O.A.No.3096/2007 before the Tribunal which by its order dated 18-12-2007 set aside those proceedings as contrary to the report submitted by the Upa-Lokayukta and also to the 1991 Rules. Assailing the same the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned Government Pleader contends that in view of the report of the A.P. Lokayukta read with the amended Rule 27 of the 1991 Rules, there is no need to issue any charge memo and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the very purpose of the amendment to Rule 27 of the 1991 Rules issued through G.O.Ms.No.350, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 08-08-2002. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent vehemently contends that ﬁrst of all the investigation said to have been conducted by the Lokayukta is contrary to the procedure contemplated in Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 and in Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa- Lokayukta (Investigation) Rules, 1984 and so the report submitted by the Lokayukta cannot be taken into consideration. He further contended that the petitioners also failed to issue charge memo to the respondent and conduct disciplinary proceedings and thereby failed to hear him on the allegations as well as on the punishment and so the order of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. 4. The amended Rule 27 of the 1991 Rules reads as follows: “27. Action on report of Lokayukta and Upa- Lokayukta:- Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 20 or rule 22, where it is proposed to impose on a Government servant any of the penalties speciﬁed in rule 9 or rule 10 on the basis of the recommendation contained in the report mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa- Lokayukta Act, 1983, the disciplinary authority shall take action on the basis of the recommendation contained in the report, after furnishing a copy of the report to the charged Government servant to make a representation, if any, within a reasonable time ﬁxed and after taking into consideration such representation, and impose any of the penalties speciﬁed in rule 9 or rule 10. Provided that, the disciplinary authority for the purpose of this rule shall be the authority under rule 2(c) or as speciﬁed under clause (c) of section 2 of the A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983.” 5. Since the A.P.Lokayukta itself is not the disciplinary authority, it sent the report to the petitioners for conducting inquiry in accordance with the 1991 Rules. But, the petitioners instead of conducting disciplinary proceedings in accordance with Rule 21 of the 1991 Rules, simply issued a show cause notice and on obtaining explanation from the respondent, examined the same with available records and decided to impose major penalty under Rule 9 of the 1991 Rules but the orders are yet to be passed. In this regard, it is the case of the petitioners that in view of the amendment to Rule 27 of the 1991 Rules, disciplinary action against the respondent was initiated by issuing a show cause notice and furnishing enquiry report of the A.P. Lokayukta to him instead of framing charges. So, it is clear that the procedure contemplated in the 1991 Rules is not followed in case of the respondent. The report of the A.P. Lokayukta being only a preliminary report, the authority has to initiate the further disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge memo. Since the respondent was not served with a charge memo, it is clear that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the 1991 Rules and thereby he was not given an opportunity of being heard on the charges that may be levelled against him and the punishment that may be imposed against him. 6. Further, the anonymous telegram was of the year 2000 and the A.P. Lokayukta had sent its report on 09-07- 2002. On receipt of the report from the A.P. Lokayukta, the petitioners ought to have initiated proceedings by issuing a charge memo. But, they have not issued any charge memo and no enquiry was conducted. More so, the petitioners have treated the report of the A.P.Lokayukta as ﬁnal report and invoking the procedure contemplated under the amended Rule 27 of the 1991 Rules, issued a show cause notice and on receipt of explanation from the respondent examined the same with available record and decided to impose a major penalty under Rule 9 of the 1991 Rules but no orders are passed till the ﬁling of O.A.No.3096/2007 before the Tribunal. 7. From the above, it is clear that the disciplinary authority failed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings as per the 1991 Rules by issuing a charge memo and conducting inquiry. That apart, though the disciplinary proceedings were instituted in 2002, till 2007 no ﬁnal order was passed. In the circumstances, we do not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, the petitioners are directed to release all pensionary benefits to the respondent. -------------------------------- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. --------------------- C.V.RAMULU, J. 28th August, 2008 cvrk