APHC010670472018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 32198/2018 Between: P.RATNABHUSHANA RAO, S/O. LATE BHIMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED DRAUGHTSMAN, SAI BABA COLONY, KANAPAKA, CANTONMENT POST, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS EX.OFFICIO SECRETARY, HOUSING DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE A P HOUSING STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R 2. GP FOR HOUSING (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the order of the second respondent dated 25.06.2009 imposing the punishment of stoppage of 3 increments without cumulative effect on the petitioner, which was confirmed by the first respondent by order dated 18.12.2012 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 09.05.2013 treating the suspension period of the petitioner from 03.11.2005 to 31.01.2008 as on leave, as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the 2 same and consequently direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner from 03.11.2005 to 31.01.2008 as on duty and to pay the salary for the said period with all consequential benefits.” 2. Heard Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri R.Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner worked as Draughtsman in Respondent No.2-Corporation and during his service, the Petitioner was placed under suspension for a period of three years and an enquiry was also initiated against him on the allegations that he had collected bribe from the beneficiaries and several irregularities have been committed while constructing the houses. Learned counsel would further submit that, two charges were framed against the Petitioner. The enquiry officer held Charge No.1 regarding the collection of bribe amount as not proved. So far as Charge No.2 i.e., the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner in construction of the houses is concerned, the Petitioner being a Draughtsman, is not responsible for the filed inspection. Despite the enquiry officer observed that the job of the Petitioner does not involve field verification, only on the ground that he has released amounts to the houses which were not constructed, held Charge No.2 as partly proved. Learned counsel would further submit that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse on the face of it. It is further submitted that the enquiry was ended by imposing minor penalty of deferment of three annual grade increments 3 without cumulative effect, but treating the suspension period of 820 days as on leave. Learned counsel would further submit that the charges framed against the Petitioners are very vague. The other officials i.e., Smt.A.Nageswari, D.E.E(H), Vizianagaram and Sri D.S.Chiranjeeva Rao, A.E(H), Vizianagaram District were set at free, but the Petitioner being a Draughtsman, who used to attend the desk work, is imposed with the minor penalty of stoppage of three annual increments without cumulative effect, however, by treating the suspension period as on leave. Learned counsel would finally submit that the punishment imposed against the Petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the Petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2-Corporation would submit that the appeal preferred by the other officials were considered by the Government and they were reinstated into services. Whereas, the Petitioner preferred an appeal with a delay and hence, the appeal was rejected twice. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record and the enquiry report would prima facie disclose that Charge No.1 relating to collection of bribe amount from the beneficiaries is not proved. With regard to Charge No.2 there is a clear observation to the effect that the Petitioner is not responsible for filed inspection. Admittedly he is a 4 Draughtsman and his duties are to draw the bills as reported by the officers. In that view, in the very next sentence, the enquiry officer by fixing responsibility on the Petitioner for the loss caused due to release of payments to the houses, which were not constructed, is a perverse finding. The reason being, when the individual was not assigned with a responsibility to conduct filed inspection, the question of verifying the stage of construction by that individual, does not arise. In such circumstances, imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect, though is a minor penalty, treating the suspension period as on leave, is not sustainable. 7. In the light of the aforementioned premises, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.06.2009, is set aside and the suspension period shall be treated as on duty. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:17.04.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.32198 of 2018 Dt.17.04.2025 Dinesh