THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.20481 and 23251 of 2011 August 26, 2011 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Agricultural and Cooperation (Coop.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Petitioners And Shaik Yaqoob Hussain, Assistant Registrar (Retd.), The then Sub Divisional Cooperative Officer, O/o.The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Secunderabad Division And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION Nos.20481 and 23251 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) These two writ petitions are filed against the common order dated in O.A.No.1249 of 2008 with VMA No.438 of 2009 dated 03.7.2009. The two interlocutory orders passed in the two Miscellaneous Applications are also assailed in the first of the two writ petitions. The first respondent in W.P.No.202481 of 2011 (hereafter, the applicant), who was working as Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, filed the O.A. challenging the charge memo dated 23.1.2008 issued by the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The sole article of the charge is that the applicant as liquidator misused his powers with reference to the land belongs to the Megacity Cooperative Urban Bank Limited (in liquidation), Nizampet, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District and thereby caused financial loss to the said Society. He challenged the same inter alia on the ground that the disciplinary authority pre-judged the issue at the time of framing of the charge, which is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 (the Rules), that the charge is vague and unspecific and that the power exercised by him is in accordance with Section 66(1)(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Reliance was placed on various decisions of the Supreme Court. The respondents opposed the same. But, having found that the transaction entered into by the delinquent officer informed the competent authority after signing the agreement with the purchasers, the Tribunal held that the disciplinary authority followed the basic rules in breach in issuing charge memo without considering the background and accordingly quashed it. However, liberty was reserved to the respondents to issue fresh charge memo in which event enquiry was directed to be concluded within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The respondents could not complete the enquiry. Therefore, they filed M.A.No.198 of 2010 seeking extension of time upto April, 2010 to complete the enquiry. By an order dated 30.4.2010 the learned Tribunal extended the time by April, 2010. Obviously when the order was passed on 30.4.2010 granting time only till that date is an inadvertence. The fact remains that the time was extended but the respondents could not complete the enquiry. They moved yet another application for extension of time. The same being M.A.No.1599 of 2010 was rejected by the learned Tribunal on 13.8.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and four others filed W.P.No.20481 of 2011. A month thereafter, the applicant filed W.P.No.23251 of 2011 assailing the order in O.A.No.1249 of 2008 insofar as the same grants liberty to the disciplinary authority to conduct fresh enquiry. This Court heard both the writ petitions together. When the department filed application being M.A.No.198 of 2010 seeking extension of time for completion of enquiry, they took specific plea that a decision was taken to issue fresh charge memo but it could not be issued within the stipulated period due to administrative reasons because the department had to obtain information from various authorities and that ultimately the charge memo was issued on 04.12.2009, which was acknowledged by the applicant on 16.12.2009. This only conclusively leads to inference that whatever the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1249 of 2008 was accepted by the department without demour. Therefore, they cannot again challenge the same having acted upon the same. Further when their application M.A.No.1599 of 2010 was dismissed by the Tribunal declining to extend the time, they chose to file the writ petition, which cannot be appreciated. In such circumstances, they ought to have challenged the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1599 of 2010. Therefore, W.P.No.20481 of 2011 is wholly misconceived. Insofar as W.P.No.23251 of 2011 filed by the applicant is concerned, the Counsel for the applicant, Mr.P.Suresh Reddy, fairly submits that adequate opportunity may be given to the applicant to submit written statement of defence under Rule 20(4) and Rule 20(5) of the Rules. He brought to our notice that disciplinary authority issued charge memo calling for the written statement of defence and even before the same could be submitted, as the applicant raised objection for conducting enquiry beyond the stipulated time an enquiry officer was appointed and there was no occasion for disciplinary authority to consider written statement of defence. We see force in the submission. It is well settled that though the strict rules of evidence and the procedure contemplated in criminal trial is not applicable to the disciplinary proceedings, abundant fairness must be adhered at every stage of the enquiry. Textually Rule 20 of the Rules is very clear that after issuing charge memo the disciplinary authority must obtain statement of defence and then decide whether to proceed with the enquiry and in case such a decision is taken, enquiry officer would be appointed. In this case, even before the statement of defence could be submitted by the applicant, enquiry officer was appointed. Therefore, we deem it proper to give an opportunity to the applicant to submit written statement of defence to the disciplinary authority, who shall consider the same and decide whether or not to continue the enquiry. Accordingly, we dismiss W.P.No.20481 of 2011 filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Commissioner for Cooperative Societies and others, and dispose of W.P.No.23251 of 2011 filed by the delinquent employee, in terms of the observations in the penultimate paragraph. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) August 26, 2011 YS