Government Of A.P. & Anr vs N. Ramanaiah

2. Relevant facts leading to filing of this appeal by the State may briefly be stated as under:

3. The respondent herein was initially appointed as Over- Seer in the year 1966 which post was re-designated as Assistant Engineer in the year 1974. He was in-charge of Bitumen stores between May 1990 and September 1994 while working as the Assistant Engineer in R&B Department, Karim Nagar District, Andhra Pradesh. It was brought to the notice of the appellant that the respondent while working at the said place misappropriated huge quantities of 425 MT of bulk bitumen and 71.00 MT of pack bitumen. The Engineer- in-chief (R&B) Administration, was accordingly directed by the Government to frame appropriate charges against the respondent and others involved in the misappropriation under sub-rule (3) of Rule 20 of A.P.Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 (herein referred to as the `Rules') against the respondent and others concerned. The Engineer-in-chief accordingly framed articles of charges as against the 3 respondent. The Government issued orders appointing a Member of Commissionerate of Inquiries as the Enquiry Officer to conduct departmental enquiry against the respondent and others for the irregularities of large scale misappropriation of bitumen belonging to Government valued at about more than Rs. Forty Lakhs. The respondent was placed under suspension by the order dated 13.08.1998. The Enquiry Officer after making an enquiry as is required in law has submitted his report in which it is held that the respondent who was incharge of stores has not been able to properly account for missing quantities of bitumen and accordingly held that the charges have been duly proved against him.

4. The Government having examined the Enquiry Officer's report and material available on record provisionally decided to impose a major penalty of dismissal from service on the respondent. A show cause notice under Rule 21(4) of the Rules was served on the respondent requiring him to explain 4 as to why the major penalty of dismissal should not be imposed on him. A copy of the Enquiry Officer's report has been duly furnished to the delinquent to which he submitted his written statement. The Government having examined the written statement of defence found no merit in it. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission was consulted as is required in law for its concurrence to impose the major punishment of dismissal from service on the respondent to which the Commission expressed its concurrence. The Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

5. The respondent challenged the said order of dismissal before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide its judgment dated 28.06.2002; upheld the order of dismissal passed by the Government against the respondent 5 and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by him. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed Writ petition No.2121/03 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court vide its impugned judgment quashed the orders of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal and accordingly set aside the order of dismissal passed against the respondent. Hence this appeal by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.

A plain reading of the Rules aforementioned clearly suggests the disciplinary authority endowed with the jurisdiction to impose on a member of subordinate service, the penalties specified in clause (ii) and (v) to (ix) of Rule 9 includes not only the appointing authority but any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate. The power is concurrently conferred upon the appointing authority and 13 as well as the authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate. There is no dispute that Engineer-in-chief being the appointing authority in respect of the post that was held by the respondent delinquent at the time of initiation of disciplinary enquiry is undoubtedly subordinate to the Government. In such view of the matter it cannot be said that the Government had no jurisdiction or the authority under the Rules to impose a major penalty on a member of subordinate service. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 clearly enables not only the appointing authority but any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate to impose penalties including the dismissal of Government servant from service. There is no provision in the Rules which prohibits the Government exercising the power of appointing authority in the matter of imposition of the penalties specified in clauses

(c), an appeal lies to the Governor if such an order imposing a penalty specified in Rule 2 is passed by the State Government. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that the State Government was competent to order the compulsory retirement of the appellant. "

16. In the case on hand the Rules clearly empower not only the disciplinary authority but as well as the Government to impose appropriate punishment as against delinquent public servant for proven charges of misconduct. In our opinion the judgment is not relevant and in no manner supports the point urged by the learned senior counsel for the respondent.

19. It is evident from the record that no other substantial grounds have been raised or urged by the respondent employee either in the Tribunal or in the High Court challenging the order of his dismissal from service. Nothing was urged even before us on merits. The High Court, mainly, therefore concentrated on the question as regards the validity of the impugned order of dismissal passed by the Government with which we have dealt in this judgment of ours. Therefore no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter for fresh consideration on merits. 30

20. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the order passed by the High Court interfering with the order of dismissal passed by the Government. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside.

21. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.