J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 14014 OF AMARAVATI OF JUNE Between: D. Venkata Subba Reddy, r working as Senior Assistant office of the District Kadapa. S/o.Late.Sri.D.Obula Reddy, Aged 57 years. Sub Registrar Pulivendala, YSR ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Revenue (Regn-I) Department, Secretariat 2. The Commissioner And Inspector General Tadepalli, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Police Guest House, Cooperative colony, Kadapa 516004 its Special Chief Secretary , Velagapudi 522 503 of Registration and Stamps, and Stamps, Opposite to ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the in the circumstances stated i be pleased to issue a Writ or Order declare the action of the 1ST Constitution of India praying that in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may in the nature of Mandamus, to respondent imposing major penalty of stoppage of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect through GO Rt No.220 Revenue (VIGILANCE-II) Department arbitrary, violative of principles of more dated12.03.2025,as illegal, reasons, not a any evidence, disproportionate punishment natural justice, vi/ithout speaking order, without and accordingly set aside the 1ST respondent GO Rt No.220 Revenue (VIGILANCE-II) Department dated12.03.2025 where under major penalty of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect in so far as the petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to SUSPEND the 1ST respondent GiO Rt No.220 Revenue (VIGILANCE-II) Department dated:12.03.2025 where under major penalty of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect in so far as the petitioner. Counsel for the PetitionerSRI K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.14014 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief; “to declare the action of the 1"‘ respondent imposing major penalty of stoppage of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect through G.O.Rt.No.220, Revenue (VIGILANCE-ll) Department, dated 12.03.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, not a speaking order, without any without reasons, evidence, disproportionate punishment, and accordingly set Revenue respondent G.O.Ftt,No.220, 1st aside the (VIGILANCE-ll) Department, dated 12.03.2025 where under major penalty of stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative effect in sc far as the petitioner and pass such other orders.” 2. Heard Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I, appearing for respondents. to ACB check conducted on 12.07.2017, In pursuance l^t respondent has issued G.O.Rt.No.396, Revenue (Vigilance-ll) dated 27.05.2022, communicating articles of charge 3. Department 2 ' <■! CGR, J W P. No.14014 of 2025 essentially related to unearthing of unaccounted cash. In levelled against the petitioner, for which, After due which total seven charges were petitioner submitted explanation refuting the same. Commissioner of Inquiries submitted report on enquiry, the 08.09.2023 holding that charges 1, 4, 6 & 7 were not proved and the remaining were proved. Upon furnishing copy of the enquiry to submit explanation, for report, petitioner was called upon submitted explanation 02.03.2024. on petitioner the said explanation, ultimately, the 1®' respondent which Considering issued G.O.Rt.No.220, Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department, dated 12.03.2025, imposing major penalty of stoppage of three annual Assailing the same. grade increments with cumulative effect, present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned G.O.Rt.No.220 imposing major punishment does not deal in any manner to the explanation offered by petitioner on 02.03.2024, clear violation of procedure contemplated under Rule which is in 21 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Further, he also 1991 (herein after, ‘Rules, 1991’) Rules, contended that before imposing the punishment 1®' respondent has not sought prior advise of the Commission the 3 CGR, J W.P. No. 14014 of 2025 therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings are vitiated on that count alone. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Nannam Chinna Reddiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others^. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents on the other hand submits that in pursuance to the articles of charge, the respondents have conducted through enquiry after providing due opportunity to the petitioner and only after inviting the enquiry report from Commissioner of Inquiries on 08.09.2023, considering the explanation of the petitioner offered thereto, finally 1®' respondent has passed the impugned order imposing punishment, which cannot be found fault with and therefore, tried to justify and sustain the impugned order. 6. Perused the record and with the consent of both counsels, the matter is being disposed of at the admission stage as facts are not in dispute. 7. Petitioner was issued articles of charge vide G.O.Rt.No.396, dated 27.05.2022, setting out seven charges. The Commissioner of Inquiries, after conducting enquiry and ’ 2025 see Online AP 1945 4 CGR, J W.P. No. 14014 of 2025 providing due opportunity to the petitioner, has submitted report dated 08.09.2023. As per the said report, charges 1, 4, 6 & 7 were held not proved, and charges 2, 3 & 5 were held to be proved. Petitioner has submitted detailed explanation dated 02.03.2024 to the extent of findings of charges, which are stated to be proved. By impugned order dated 12.03.2025, the respondent imposed major punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: “3. In the reference read above. Government have appointed Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively. The Commissioner of Inquiry has submitted Inquiry Report and held that the findings of the certain charges framed are proved against all the charged officers in the reference lO^*" read above and same have been communicated to charged officers vide reference read above. The Deputy Inspector General, Registration & Stamps has submitted written statement of defence of the charged officers vide reference 12th read above. 4. Government, after examining the material made available on record, have decided to impose a major penalty of stoppage of three (3) annual grade increments with cumulative effect against Sri Dandu Venkata Subba 5 CGR, J W.P. No.14014 of 2025 Reddy, the then Senior Assistant, O/o Sub-Registrar Urban, Kadapa, as the charges held against him as proved. 5. Accordingly, Government hereby impose the major penalty of stoppage of three (3) annual grade increments with cumulative effect against Sri Dandu Venkata Subba Reddy, the then Senior Assistant, O/o Sub-Registrar Urban, Kadapa as the charges held against him as proved.” Above extracted portion of order, which is relevant for 8. present purpose, does not in any way consider the objections of petitioner and provide for reasons. [Except stating that 1®' respondent has examined material available on record, no satisfaction has been recorded, as such, coming to conclusion that it is a case to impose major penalty. This Court considering similar circumstances in Nannam Chinr/a Reddiah’s case (supra 1) had an occasion to deal with requirements of Rule 21 of Rules, 1991. Paragraph No.10 of the said order reads thus: “10. Plain reading of aforesaid Rule would go to show that after the enquiry report has been placed before the disciplinary authority, it is required to fon/vard such report to the delinquent calling upon him to submit written representation or submission within fifteen days. Once such representation submitted, the disciplinary authority is mandated to consider the same and record its findings before further proceeding with the matter to formulate an 6 CGR, J W.R No. 14014 of 2025 opinion that, having regard to the said findings, the same would attract any of the penalties though specified in clauses (i) to (ix) of Rule 9 and pass order imposing such penalty. The sub-Rule (3) of Rule 21 used expression ‘shall’ and ‘its’ meaning thereby it is mandatory on the part of disciplinary authority to consider representation of delinquent and record findings of its own before proceeding to the next stage of sub-Rule (4) and (5). In other words, it is mandatory for the disciplinary authority to render specific findings on the representation and based such findings as to whether the gravity of charges deserves penalties those specified under clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9. It requires clear application of mind and consideration to the objections raised by delinquent, followed by reasons for such opinion.” 9. Further with respect to recording of reasons also, this Court while referring to Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in S.N.Mukherjee V. Union of India^ case, held as under: the on “Thus, the impugned order since does not record any specific findings or reasons upon objective consideration, much less recording that it accepts the findings of enquiry officer and proceeds to arrive provisional decision to impose penalty is in the teeth of above judgments, does not stand scrutiny. Though disciplinary authority is not required to record and provide elaborate and exhaustive reasons. 2 (1990) 4 see 594 7 CGR, J W.P. No. 14014 of 2025 the order should reflect semblance of reasons, which is completely absent in the present case.” 10. As even in the present case, the impugned order does not meet the requirements of Rule 21 of Rules, 1991 and as well as does not record any specific findings or reasons upon objective consideration of petitioner’s objections, hence, the impugned order cannot sustain and accordingly, the same requires to be set aside. 11. In view of the same, the impugned G.O.Rt.No.220, Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department, dated 12.03.2025, issued by the l'^* respondent is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back for reconsideration in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending consideration, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Special Chief Secretary, State of Andhra Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi 522 503 2. The Commissioner And Inspector General Tadepalli, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Police Guest House. Cooperative 4. One CC to SRI. K R SRINIVAS 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I , 6. Three CD Copies Pradesh, Revenue (Regn-I) of Registration and Stamps and Stamps, Opposite to colony, Kadapa 516004 Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] nim HIGH COURT DATED: 17/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.14014 of 2025 a t7SEP rrentSectio Os ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS