THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.6476 of 2023 O R DE R: This writ petition is filed declaring the proceedings in Roc.No.02/2022/C1, dated 08.09.2022, proceedings Roc.No.2/2022/C1, dated 18.10.2022 issued by 1st Respondent including Proceedings Roc.No.02/2022/C1, dated 15.12.2022 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The Petitioner was issued the impugned charge memorandum dated 18.10.2022 alleging that the Petitioner had demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from 4th Respondent-M.Kiran Kumar to process the leave salary bills and retirement bills lying in the Public Health Section and Treasury in respect of her mother Smt.M.Mariyamma, Public Health worker, Guntur Municipal Corporation. 3. The written complaint of Respondent No.4 was shown as document relied upon in the Annexure-II. In Annexure-III, no witnesses were cited to sustain the charge against the Petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the charge memorandum is not in consonance with the Andhra 2 Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’). 4. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-IV for the Respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the impugned charge memorandum cannot be sustained without therebeing any preliminary enquiry and without any witness being cited to sustain the charge. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader as well as standing counsel would submit that the aspects raised by the Petitioner can be considered in the course of enquiry. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.1, it is stated that list of witnesses will be cited in the course of enquiry and that the complainant will be a witness to this case and therefore, there is no deviation in issuance of charge memorandum. 8. Having heard the respective counsel, the Article of Charge framed against the Petitioner is as under: 3 ANNEXURE-1 Article - 1 - That the said Srl V.Malavya, Junior Assistant, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, while functioning as (F5&F3 I/c) in Public Health Section was demanded and accepted an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from Sri M.Kiran Kumar S/o late Sri yellakondaiah, deceased Public Health Worker, Guntur Municipal Corporation to process the leave salary bills and retirement benefits bills lying in Public Health Section and treasury in respect of her mother Smt M. Marlyamma, Public Health worker, Guntur Municipal Corporation. 9. Normally, the charge memorandum should contain four Annexures i.e. Annexure No.1 is Articles of charge memorandum, Annexure No.2 is statement of imputation, Annexure No.3 is list of documents on which charge is sought to be proved and Annexure No.4 is list of witnesses which are to sustain the allegation against the Petitioner. The Rule 20(3) of the Rules is extracted below for better appreciation: [(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government Servant under this Rule and Rule 21, the Disciplinary Authority or the *[x x x] Controlling Authority who is not designated as Disciplinary Authority and who is subordinate to the Appointing Authority can draw up or cause to be drawn up- 4 *[The word cadre omitted by G.O. Ms. No. 459, G.A (Ser.C), Dept., Dt. 22-09-2009] (i) The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge. (ii) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain- (a) A statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government Servant. (b) A list of documents by which and a list of witness by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. 10. A reading of the above Rule would make the requirements explicit i.e. Articles of Charge, Statement of Imputation and Statement of Individual on which the charge is sought to be sustained and documents have to be enclosed to the charge memorandum. 11. In this case, there is no annexure No.4 to the charge memorandum and there are no witnesses cited to sustain the charge against the Petitioner. Further no statement of imputation was also given explaining the reason or issuing the impugned charge memorandum. 12. A mere complaint by an individual would not suffice unless the said individual has been cited as a witness and the delinquent 5 is given a chance to cross-examine the said witness with regard to the charge. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others1 held that the charges have to be proved by an individual and in the absence of an individual charge per se cannot be sustained and mere filing of document would not suffice to establish the charge. 13. In that view, the impugned charge memorandum in the absence of any witnesses and statement of imputation is contrary to the Rules and a futile exercise. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned charge memorandum in Roc.No.2/2022/C1 dated 18.10.2022 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The Respondents are at liberty to issue a charge memorandum as per the Rules. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 03.09.2025 KLP 1 (2009) 2 SCC 570