IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO: 10574 of 2008 Between: K.V.Ramagopal S/o.K.V.Ramanaiah R&B South Building Division, Beside Meera Talkies, Khairatabad, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary I&CAd Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Superintending Engineer, TGP Circle Srikalahasti, Chittoor District 3 The Chief Engineer, TGP Circle, Srikalahasti Chittoor District 4 The Engineer in Chief I& CAD Department, Errammanzil, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the order dated 7.10.2005 passed in OA.No.2888/2001 by the Hon`ble AP Administrative Tribunal and set aside the same as unjust without any basis and contrary to law and also set aside the memo No.SE/TGPC/SKHT/EC-2/76/93/20 dated 16.4.2001 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass orders as are deemed fit. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.RATNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court at the admission stage made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10574 OF 2008 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 7-10-2005 passed in OA No.2888 of 2001 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and to set aside the same and consequently to set aside the Memo.SE/TGPC/SKHT/EC-2/76/93/20, dated 16-4-2001 issued by the 2nd respondent-Superintending Engineer. 2. Facts stated are that the petitioner while working as Jr. Assistant during the year 1993-96 in TGP Circle, Srikalahasti, had put up file in respect of promotions of two persons from the post of Attender to the post of Junior Assistant before the competent authority for taking appropriate action as per rules. It is stated that basing on the said proposal put up by the petitioner, the Deputy Superintending Engineer, after verification, recommended their names to the competent authority and based on the said recommendations, the said two persons were promoted as Junior Assistants. It is further stated that an anonymous complaint was filed before the Lok Ayuktha in the name of Telugu Ganga Employees Association, Telugu Ganga Project, Srikalahasti, making certain allegations against the Superintendent, Dy. Superintending Engineer and the petitioner saying that they have collected Rs.6,000/- from the above two persons for promoting them as Junior Assistants. The Lok Ayuktha registered the complaint no.1693/95/B1 and investigated the matter and by an order dated 29-6-2000 passed the following order: “The Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project is directed to take disciplinary action as he deems fit against the PSs.1 to 3 for committing irregularities in giving promotions etc., and set right the situation in accordance with rules. He shall submit action taken report to this institution within the time bound of three months for the purpose of record.” 3. It is stated by the petitioner that though the Lok Ayuktha directed the 3rd respondent-Chief Engineer to take action against the persons actually involved in the grant of promotions, the 2nd respondent-Superintending Engineer, issued show cause notice dated 20-3-2001 requiring him to explain why the penalty of with holding one increment as per rules should not be imposed on him, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 31-3-2001 denying all the allegations and requested to drop the charges. 4. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent by order dated 16- 4-2001 imposed a penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner and the said order dated 16-4- 2001 was assailed before the AP Administrative Tribunal in the above OA. The Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the said OA. Hence this writ petition by the applicant in the OA. 5. Sri M. Ratna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent-Superintending Engineer is liable to be set aside, as no enquiry, as contemplated under Rule-20 of APCS & CCA Rules was conducted and no opportunity afforded to the petitioner before imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the 2nd respondent was a party to the proceedings before the Lok Ayuktha and, therefore, he cannot be permitted to be a judge in his own cause. 6. Admittedly, no enquiry as contemplated under Rule-20 of APCS & CCA Rules was conducted and opportunity afforded to the petitioner before imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Further, the 2nd respondent being party to the proceedings before the Lok Ayuktha, cannot be permitted to be a judge in his own cause, more so, in the light of the direction given by the Lok Ayuktha to take appropriate action by the 3rd respondent- Chief Engineer. 7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and consequently the Memo.SE/TGPC/SKHT/EC-2/76/93/20, dated 16-4- 2001 issued by the 2nd respondent is also set aside directing the 3rd respondent-Chief Engineer conduct de-novo enquiry in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed at the admission stage itself. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated: 10th June, 2008 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}