APHC010371792021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Monday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B S Bhanumathi Writ Petition Between: K. Dasaratharami Reddy S/o Jalarami Reddy The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Penjuri Venugopal Counsel for the respondents: 1. GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B S Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) No: 37 of 2021 (O.A No.610 of 2016) K. Dasaratharami Reddy S/o Jalarami Reddy ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad …..Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Counsel for the respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Monday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five ...Petitioner The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad …..Respondents 2 BSB, J WP (AT) No.37 of 2021 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “…to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 1st respondent bearing G.O.Rt.No.1168, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, dt.19.11.2015 and set aside the same by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the entire pensionary benefits to the applicant, including Gratuity, Commutation etc., with interest and to pass such other order or orders…..” 2. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: a) The petitioner while working as Sub-Registrar, Tenali, Guntur District, received a charge memo No.X2/25758/1995, dated 01.06.1998. The article of charge framed against the petitioner reads as follows: “That the said Sri K. Dasaratharami Reddy, while working as Sub-Registrar, Tenali, registered the document Nos.1589 and 1727 of 1995 without verifying the date of purchase of stamps sold by Sri Ch.Radhakrishna Murthy, Stamp Vendor, Guntur, Sri K. Rama Rao, Stamp Vendor, Nallapadu, as required in Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Instructions vide Memo No.MV.I/5000/92, dt.26-7-93 and 27-8-93. In the preliminary enquiry it was prima facie established that the 3 BSB, J WP (AT) No.37 of 2021 Stamp vendors have sold the stamps used for the above documents with ante-dates to facilitate the parties t draft documents with ante-dates in order to evade payment of stamp duty on the revised market values which have come into force w.e.f.,1-4-95. An account of selling stamps with ante-dates and Sri K. Dasaratharami Reddy registering the documents without verifying the date of selling of stamps, Government sustained a loss of revenue of Rs.27,845/-.” b) In response to the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 01.07.1998 requesting to furnish the list of documents which are mentioned in the charge memo. The petitioner denied ante-dating of stamps and stated that stamp papers for execution of a document can be purchased in any part of Andhra Pradesh for presentation of that document at any Sub Registrar’s office having jurisdiction in the State and for documents to be registered in Tenali, there is no prohibition against purchase of stamps by the parties in any sub district. It was further submitted that the documents are not ante dated with reference to the date of purchase of stamps. It is the duty of the Registering Officer to check the document writer’s registers and satisfy himself that the said documents were duly entered in the registers for the document writers prior to its closure. The two documents mentioned in the charge memo were executed on 31.03.95, i.e., prior to 01.04.1995 from which date the revision of values have come into force. c) On consideration of the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings, dated 06.04.2000, appointing the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer nearly after 4 BSB, J WP (AT) No.37 of 2021 more than 1 ½ year without furnishing the documents. No enquiry was conducted for about eight (8) years and another enquiry officer was appointed by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 03.12.2008. As he had also failed to conduct any enquiry, the 2nd respondent appointed another Enquiry Officer, vide proceedings, dated 17.04.2010 to conduct common enquiry against this petitioner and others. The enquiry officer held that the charge against the petitioner is proved on the basis of the preliminary enquiry while holding the loss of revenue to the government is Rs.3115/-. Basing on the said enquiry report, the 1st respondent had issued a show cause notice, dated 05.12.20213 for which the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 29.01.2014 followed by another explanation in the month of May 2015. But, without considering the explanation of the petitioner in proper perspective, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.1168, Revenue (Vigilance.II) Department, dated 19.11.2015, imposing punishment of 10% cut in pension permanently besides recovery of an amount of Rs.27,845/-. d) There is an inordinate delay in conducting enquiry. Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules prescribes time limit at every stage of enquiry. In the present case, the allegation pertains to the year 1995, the charge memo was issued after lapse of 3 years, i.e., 01.06.1998, the enquiry officer was appointed after lapse of more than 1 ½ year who did not conduct enquiry and after lapse of more than 8 years, another enquiry officer was appointed who too did not conduct any enquiry and after a lapse of more than 1 ½ year, another enquiry officer was appointed and ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed. Hence, this writ petition. 5 BSB, J WP (AT) No.37 of 2021 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that there is inordinate delay in disposal of the enquiry as the charge pertains to the alleged act committed in the year 1995 and the petitioner retired from service in the year 2006 whereas the show cause notice was issued in the year 2014 and final order of punishment was passed in the year 2015. It is further contended that the alleged loss to the Government is Rs.3445/- but the punishment imposed is 10% cut in pension permanently, and therefore, it is very disproportionate to the alleged act. Regarding merits, it is contended that the alleged act is unintentional yet, without properly appreciating the defence, the punishment was imposed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court in Smt. G.Leelavathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and D.Nagesh Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2. 6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that mere delay alone cannot be a ground to set aside the punishment as it has not resulted in any prejudice to the petitioner. It is further contended that the loss to the government was proved, and therefore, it cannot be contended that the petitioner is not guilty of the charge. It is also contended that when the charge is proved, the Government has discretion to impose appropriate punishment and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned proceedings. 7. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has never challenged the proceedings on the ground of delay. Moreover, the petitioner has not shown that the prolongation of enquiry resulted in 1 W.P.No.21768 of 2021, dt.05.07.2022 2 W.P.No.14685 of 2019, dt.10.02.2020 6 BSB, J WP (AT) No.37 of 2021 prejudice in any form in respect of his defence. Therefore, on that ground alone, the impugned order cannot be set aside. 8. As due enquiry was conducted holding the charged officer is guilty of the charge, no interference is required. 9. However, insofar as the proportionality of the punishment is concerned when compared to the loss, the extent of punishment imposed is very high. So, the punishment imposed can be modified from 10% of cut in pension permanently to that of 10% cut in pension for two years from the date of retirement. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J Dt.07-04-2025 RAR