IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY. THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATfIL'’ WRIT PETITION (AT) NO: 97 OF 2021 ^ -c «t Between: 53 years, Office Subordinate, fhP nffi^o -i?i^T h® presently working on deputation in the office of The Tahsildar, Tulluru, Guntur District. ...Petitioner AND A/inibn.!! Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 500 022. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, for the state of A P Nampally Railway Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad 500 001. 3. The Collector and District Magistrate Guntur District, Guntur 522001. ...Respondents at Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to call for the records relating to the proceedings respondent bearing G.O.Rt.No.11 may of the 1®* Revenue (Vigilance-1) Department, same with all cohsequential behefits by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. dated 6-1-2015 and set aside the being violative lA NO: 1 OF 2npfi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated In the affidavit filed In support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave for filing of the Counter Affidavit in W P(AT) No 97/2021. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S GOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1 The Cogrt made the following order: V-; V V APHC010219492021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the Seventeenth day of March Two thousand and twenty five. Present The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Writ Petition (AT) No.97 of 2021 Between: ...Applicant/Petitioner K.Israel and ...Respondents The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: I.S.Gopal Rao Counsel for the respondent{s): 1 .GP for Services-I (AP) The Court made the following Order: This writ petition was registered before this High Court on the matter in O.A.No.1169 of 2016 being transferred from the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. 02. The petition was filed under section 19 of A.P Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the proceedings of the 1 respondent vide G.O.R.T.No.11, Revenue (Vigilance-1) Department, dated 06.01.2015 imposing punishment of stoppage St 2 BSB,J W.P.(AT) No. 97 of 2021 of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner was initially appointed as watchman in Revenue Establishment of Guntur District and joined as such on 01.06.1995. Subsequently, he was posted as Office Subordinate in the office of Tahsildar, Thulluru Mandal, Guntur District. The 1 respondent issued a charge memo to the petitioner as follows; “Sri Kalintha Israel, S/o Sri Raja Rao, joined in Govt.Service on 1-06-1995 and while functioning as Watchman, Urban Land Ceiling Office, Guntur during the 2-2-2007 committed grave 03. St period between 01-06-1995 to misconduct in as much as he indulged in corrupt practices and found cash Rs.300/- in his possession, without declaring in personal cash declaration register. Though he is the watchman of the above office, he failed to declare his personal cash in cash declaration register as per the Circular Memo No.29756-B/153/A1/Admn.1/100 and failed to maintain absolute integrity in violation of APCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964”. This Sri Kalintha Israel, by his above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a member of service and thereby contravened Rule 9(8)(B) r/w Rule 3(1) & (2) of ARCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964”. The petitioner submitted explanation denying the charge and stating that he had brought with him Rs.300/- (being the balance amount of his salary for the month of December, 2006), while 04. f 3 BSB.J W.P.(AT) No. 97 of 2021 coming to the office on 02.02.2007 as it is his habit and that no cash declaration register was being maintained in the office and therefore the individual staff members cannot be blamed for not disclosing that personai cash. 05. The petitioner contends that instead of dropping the charge, a common enquiry was ordered against the petitioner and thus the enquiry officer, without conducting regular enquiry as contemplated under Rule 20 of the APCS(CC&A) Rules, 1991, submitted report basing on which the 1®^ respondent issued a memo dated 08.02.2010 to the petitioner to submit the representation on the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner submitted that his representation requesting to drop further action, however, nearly after five years, the 1®‘ respondent issued the impugned proceeding dated 06.01.2015 and communicated the same to the petitioner on 08.03.2016 vide proceeding of the 3 respondent bearing RC.No.2556 of 2007-A4, dated 07.12.2015 through the Tahsildar, Peddanandipadu mandal, Guntur District imposing punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Hence, this petition was filed challenging the same. rd The 3''^ respondent filed counter affidavit stating briefly as 06. follows: A surprise check was conducted on 02.02.2007 and the Director General of Anti Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad vide letter No.COI/DES-VGT/2007 dated 04.08.2007 submitted a report regarding the special officer and competent authority. Urban land ceiling, assigning land in Guntur and his staff are indulging in corrupt practice and collecting bribes. Based on the report charge 4 BSB,J W.P.(AT) No. 97 of 2021 concerned, including the petitioner and Rule 20 of the APCS(CC&A) Rules, 1991 being proved, the punishment was imposed. were issued to the memos enquiry was held as per and on the charge Therefore, the impugned proceeding does not require any interference. learned counsei for the petitioner submitted that the fact hand in the cash 07. The that the petitioner failed to disclose the cash on had not been proved since no such register had yet punishment was imposed disclosure register been maintained in the office natural justice and rules of procedure. He against principles of further submitted that the amount is that it could be iiiegal gratification. He further submitted inordinate delay in holding the enquiry and and therefore, the proceeding impugned also not huge so as to presume that there was imposing the punishment in the petition is liable to the quantum of punishment is disproportionate to the charge. He order, another charged set aside. That apart, he submitted that further submitted that in the common officer by name Sri K.Venkata before this High punishment and the writ petition was punishment. Therefore, he contended that the petitioner is entitled to the similar relief as the grounds are the same Srinivas filed W.P.No.98 of 2021 Court challenging the similar order imposing allowed setting aside the in both the petitions. learned Assistant Government Pieader for Services-1 procedure had been followed while conducting stated in detail in the 08. The submitted that due the enquiry and imposing the punishment as counter. 5 BSB.J W.P.(AT) No. 97 of 2021 As can be seen from the record, there is no where a mention that a cash disclosure register was maintained in the office where the petitioner was working and that the applicant deliberately failed to disclose the amount with him in the register or that the amount disclosed in the register is different from the amount found with him. In the absence of such fundamental evidence, merely because some amount of cash was found in possession of the petitioner, it is beyond comprehension to treat it as failure of the petitioner in disclosing the amount. Moreover, the amount is also not so high as to presume that the petitioner was indulged in corrupt practice. Without properly examining the explanation offered, merely on the ground that he possessed the cash, charge was framed and enquiry was held and severe punishment was also imposed, that too taking a very long time leading to inordinate delay involving the whole process. In similar case, in W.P.No.98 of 2021 which was filed by the other charged officer noted above was allowed setting aside the punishment against him. No writ appeal was preferred as per the submission made by both sides. Under all these circumstances, it is case fit to allow the writ petition. 09. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// 10. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER 3. The Collector and District Magistrate Guntur District 4. One CC to Sri S Gopal Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Services -1 6. Two CD Copies 022. Guntur 522001. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] \ HIGH COURT DATED:17/03/2025 ORDER WP(AT).No.97 of 2021 * 21 MaB 2tWi 5 o? a^ . Current deciion . y ALLOWING THE WP(AT) WITHOUT COTS