APHC010352982006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION N Between: 1. K. DEVENDRA MOHA FORMELY ASSISTANT PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, CHITTOOR, RESIDING AT D.N JANAKARIPALLE, CHITTOOR, CH 1. THE JOINT COLLECTOR 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.P. V.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR SERVICES I 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO WRIT PETITION No: 15654 of 2006 K. DEVENDRA MOHAN, S/o. K.V.R. NAIDU, AGED 53 YEARS, FORMELY ASSISTANT PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, CHITTOOR, RESIDING AT D.N JANAKARIPALLE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE JOINT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS, ANDHRA PRADESH, ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SERVICES I NJS,J & VGKR, J WP_15654_2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3500] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA AGED 53 YEARS, FORMELY ASSISTANT PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, CHITTOOR, RESIDING AT D.No.27-398, ...PETITIONER CHITTOOR DISTRICT. THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS, ANDHRA PRADESH, ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 NJS,J & VGKR, J WP_15654_2006 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble NJS, J) The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 08.08.2005 in O.A.No.5540 of 2004. 2. Heard Mr.P.V.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared through online. Also heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner / applicant in O.A.No.5540 of 2004 was appointed as Village Administrative Officer, Chittoor in the year 1992. The 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 17.06.1997 placed him under suspension pending enquiry into with the following irregularities: “1. A sum of Rs.100/- penalty imposed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor in D.Dis/4347/93, dated 14.08.1996, has so far not been remitted into the treasury. 2. he was in possession of as many as eight village house site and Town House site pattas of others in his house. 3. he misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,512/- collected under NALA, for fasli 1404. 4. he misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,654/- collected under NALA, for fasli 1405. 5. he recommended Ediga caste certificate to Balija people, in violation of instructions. 6. he himself delivered village house site pattas No.5A/94/1404 dated 11.08.1994 to two persons near District Judge Bungalow, which are not entered in Village House Site Register at Mandal Revenue Officer’s Office, 3 NJS,J & VGKR, J WP_15654_2006 Chittoor. This leads to suspicion that these house site pattas are bogus pattas. 7. he recommended Dudekula caste certificate to some muslim people, which is quite irregular. 8. he did not attend videography programme during 1996. 9. he without applying for any leave had left for Nellore and Bangalore from 15.09.1996 to 27.09.1996. 10. he without distributing Photo Identity cards to the concerned voters, kept as many as 36 Photo Identity Cards with him. 11. the Village Administrative Officer has been directed to collect the Photographs from a poor women so as to sanction old age pension by the Revenue Divisional Officer about two months back. But, so far he did not attend to it.” 4. Subsequently, the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 17.06.1998 dismissed the petitioner from service. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed O.A.No.8310 of 1998. The learned Tribunal while making certain observations about the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer with reference to the charges mentioned above and that the charge of misappropriation of Government money was levelled basing on the records which are not furnished for defending his case, set aside the order of dismissal and gave liberty to the respondents therein to proceed against the applicant / writ petitioner in accordance with the rules, after supplying the copy of the registers or the information sought for by him, in accordance with the Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the matter was carried by way of W.P.No.470 of 2000 and a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of 4 NJS,J & VGKR, J WP_15654_2006 Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by an order dated 23.03.2001 dismissed the writ petition. 5. Subsequently, a Charge Memo dated 05.01.2002 was issued to the writ petitioner calling upon him to submit written explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for misappropriation of Government money and committing serious irregularities in his capacity as Village Administrative Officer, Chittoor. Challenging the said Charge Memo, the writ petitioner herein filed O.A.No.3411 of 2002 before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of by an order dated 02.04.2002 with a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Chittoor to furnish copies of necessary records, as per the Rules, to the applicant / writ petitioner to enable him to file his explanation, based upon which, further action can be taken for concluding the disciplinary proceedings. 6. The writ petitioner subsequently filed another O.A.No.2632 of 2003 seeking to declare the action of the Joint Collector, Chittoor / 1st respondent in not passing appropriate orders on the explanation submitted by him to the Charge Memo dated 05.01.2002 as illegal, improper etc., and for certain directions. The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A., vide order dated 13.04.2002 with a direction to the Joint Collector, Chittoor to pass appropriate orders on the explanation submitted by the writ petitioner to the Charge Memo dated 05.01.2002, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the 5 NJS,J & VGKR, J WP_15654_2006 said order and to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion to the post of Panchayat Secretary. 7. The Joint Collector / 1st respondent, after examining the matter in the light of the enquiry report dated 10.11.2003 submitted by the District Revenue Officer, Chittoor, issued a Provisional Conclusion Order dated 06.12.2003 opining that the irregularities committed by the writ petitioner are grave in nature, that the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory and granted seven days time to explain as to why the writ petitioner should not be removed from service for indulging in grave irregularities. 8. The writ petitioner submitted his written explanation on 17.12.2003, inter alia, assailing that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer are not sustainable, that non-furnishing of the copies of the relevant records tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice. Thereafter, in view of the grave irregularities and findings in respect of the charges Nos.2, 5 and 7, which are grave and found proved, the petitioner was removed from service vide proceedings dated 25.12.2003. Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.06.2004, rejected the same. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5540 of 2004, the Tribunal after perusing the material placed before it and considering the submissions advanced before it, dismissed the O.A., by an order dated 08.08.2005 inter alia opining that as per 6 NJS,J & VGKR, J WP_15654_2006 the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, it is not for the Tribunal to enter upon the merits in a disciplinary case and record findings on the charges and further that the respondents have taken enough care to conduct the enquiry in accordance with the provisions laid down in A.P.V.A.O., Service Rules. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the charges proved against the writ petitioner are trivial and not serious in nature, that inflicting the major punishment of removal from service in such circumstances is unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable. He submits that in fact a copy of the enquiry officer’s report was not furnished to the writ petitioner and therefore, the order of punishment is vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. No other grounds were raised in the writ petition as to why the order under challenge warrants interference by this Court. Be that as it may. 10. Insofar as the second contention with regard to non-furnishing of the enquiry report, from a reading of the Provisional Conclusion Order dated 06.12.2003, it would appear that while affording an opportunity of submitting explanation as also personal hearing, a copy of the report of the enquiry officer was furnished to the writ petitioner. Though in the written explanation to the Provisional Conclusion Order, it was stated that certain relevant records, the details of which were not mentioned allegedly not furnished to the writ petitioner, no complaint / objection was raised with regard to non-furnishing of 7 NJS,J & VGKR, J WP_15654_2006 the report of the enquiry officer. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner merits no appreciation. 11. The other contention that the charges held proved are trivial, the said charges i.e., Nos.2, 5 and 7 which are extracted in Para No.3 supra are very serious in nature. As per the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the bogus caste certificate on the basis of the recommendation of the V.A.O. / writ petitioner who is the basic officer, without proper enquiry was issued. The Enquiry Officer also recorded a finding in respect of the Charge No.7 against the petitioner. 12. In the light of the seriousness of the charges which are held proved against the writ petitioner, the punishment inflicted cannot be viewed as disproportionate. Further, the departmental authorities passed orders by considering the matter in detail after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Tribunal assigned cogent reasons while dismissing the O.A. It is settled Law that the Courts shall not interfere in the order of punishment unless the same shocks the conscience of the Court. 13. On an appreciation of the matter in its entirety, this Court see no reason to take a different view or illegality in the order of the Tribunal, warranting exercise of the certiorari jurisdiction. 8 NJS,J & VGKR, J WP_15654_2006 14. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J _________________________________________ VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J DATE: 18.08.2025 BLV 9 NJS,J & VGKR, J WP_15654_2006 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO W.P.No: 15654 of 2006 (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Date: 18.08.2025 BLV