>4 IA [3311 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATL MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 183 OF 2022 Between: D. M. SYAMALA, W/o. G. Rajasekhar, Aged 63 years, Deputy Inspector General Registration and Stamps (retd), R/o. Flat No. 202, Indira Towers, American Hospital Road, Labbipet Vijayawada 520 002 ...Applicant AND 1. Special Chief Secretary to Government Revenue, (Registration - I) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi 522 503 2. Director and Inspector General Of Registration and Stamps, Edupugallu, Krishna District 523 144 3. Deputy Inspector General Registration and Stamps, Journalists Colony, Eluru, West Godavari District 534002 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned G.O.Rt.No.5 issued by Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department dtd 02-01-2018 and to set aside the same as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and to pass appropriate orders for releasing pensionary benefits to the applicant along with interest @18 percent from the date of eligibility till the date of payment. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. AMARA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: APHC010256652022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311] (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the Fifth day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition Transfered from A.P.A.T. No: 183 of 2022 (O.A.No.2480 of 2018) Between: ...Petitioner D.M. Syamala and ...Respondents Special Chief Secretary to government. Revenue (Registration - I) Department and others Counsel for the petitioner: I.Amara Rama Rao Counsel for the respondents: 1.G.P. for Services -1 The Court made the following: 2 W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022 ORDER: A petition was initially filed as O.A.No.2480 of 2018 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which, after transfer of the matter to this Court, was re-numbered as W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022. The petitioner sought to set aside G.O.Rt.No.5, Revenue (Vigilance - II) Department, dated 02.01.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and to pass appropriate orders for releasing pensionary benefits to the applicant along with interest @18% from the date of eligibility till the date of payment, and to pass any other appropriate order. 2. 3. The facts leading to filing of the petition are briefly as follows: The petitioner was appointed as Reserve Sub-Registrar during the year 1979 and promoted to several levels i.e., Assistant District Registrar, District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General and retired from service on 31.05.2013. a. b. In December, 2008, M. Gnanamba, Lok Satta Leader, Vijayawada, filed a complaint before the Lokayukta against the petitioner, while the petitioner was in the post of District Registrar (M.V. & A), Vijayawada. The Lokayukta closed the complaint and transferred the same to the respondent No.1. After examining the order of the Lokayukta, the respondent No.1 framed the following charges against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.1474, Revenue (Vigilance - VI) Department, dated 13.12.2011: “Charge-1: The Charged Officer claimed hiring charges at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per month for her own car, in benami, by 3 W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022 falsification of records, and she claimed the money by deceitful means. Charge-ll: The Charged Officer has failed to maintain "Stock Register" and Issue Register willfully, with a view to avoid accounting the amount spent on contingent items, such stationery etc., and thereby resorted to embezzlement of funds. as Charge-Ill: The Charged Officer has employed Sri Ch.Subba Rao, a retired Sub-Registrar for getting her work carried out, contrary to the guidelines issued by government. Charge-IV: The Charged Officer deputed the staff to Patamata and Gunadala and Gandhinagar offices on some pretext other and was running the office from her residence through Sri Ch.Subba Rao by closing the office in day time. Charge-V; The Charged Officer did not dispatch her tour programme in advance to the concerned for taking up the Internal Audit as well as post facto inspections which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the government. Charge-VI: The Charged Officer while working as District Registrar (Audit), Vijayawada in abuse of official position, prepared two sets of separate tour programme, intending set to the Sub Registrars and the other for claiming T.A. bills which acts are unbecoming of a public servant. Charge-VII: The Charged Officer has deputed Sri Ch.Subba Rao, Retired Sub-Registrar who was employed by her, to conduct internal audit in the Sub-Registrars’ Offices and or one x\ K W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022 getting the issues settled at her level with the Sub-Registrars whenever deficiencies were noticed in collection of stamp duty and fee without bringing the same on record, thereby gained not only pecuniary gain to self but also caused loss of revenue to the government. Charge-VIII: The Charged Officer has deputed Sri Ch.Subba Rao, a Retired Sub-Registrar, who was employed by her to conduct post facto inspections contrary to guidelines issued by the government, getting issues settled directly with the parties whenever variations were noticed in measurements etc., and thereby not only gained pecuniary advantage to self but also caused loss of revenue to the government. Charge-IX; The Charged Officer, whenever noticed certain deficiencies in collection of stamp duty and registration fee during the internal audit, in abuse of her official position, not brought to the notice of higher authorities (i.e., D.I.G.) and finalization of remarks and thereby not only extended official favour to the concerned Sub-Registrars and parties but also causing huge loss of revenues to the government. Charge-X: The Charged Officer while working as District Registrar (Audit), Vijayawada in abuse of her official position has obtained the explanations from the concerned Sub Registrars for the half margin remarks, in the internal audit, after completion of three months, contrary to the guidelines issued by the department. The petitioner submitted her defence written statement on 06.01.2012. After conducting enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted c. 5 W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022 enquiry report on 19.11.2015, confirming charges No.II to V and held the remaining charges not proved. The respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated 06.10.2016, indicating provisional imposition of 10% cut in pension as penalty. The petitioner submitted her representation on 29.09.2016 denying the charges. Consequently, the respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.408, Revenue (Vigilance - II) Department, dpted 20.04.2017, imposing penalty of 10% cut in pension for a period of three years. The petitioner filed a review petition on 24.10.2017, before the government, but the same was rejected vide G.O.Rt.No.5, Revenue (Vigilance - II) Department, dated 02.01.2018, stating that the petitioner had not submitted any valid grounds. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition was preferred. 4. a. In answer to the charges held proved, the petitioner states as follows; i. Regarding Charge-ll : the presenting officer was not sure of non maintenance of stock register and issue register and his deposition is not borne of facts but only figment of his imagination. During the course of enquiry when the applicant questioned the presenting officer whether treasury authorities would pass the bills without production of bill vouchers and proceedings he answered that vouchers and proceedings by the D.D.O. is essential and that in the preliminary enquiry report nothing was mentioned and he did not say that embezzlement took place which virtually amounts to refuting the charge. The enquiry officer finds that there is no evidence pointing to the embezzlement of the money of Rs.44,836/-. The enquiry officer erred in giving finding that the charge is proved even though there vl \ 6 W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022 was no embezzlement. Hence, the finding is incorrect and baseless false, ii. Regarding Charge-Ill : the presenting officer opined that not a shred of evidence is available to infer that Mr. Subba Rao was engaged and remuneration was paid to him. Mr.Subba Rao worked in the same office and retired from there on and he used to come to his old office as he has good acquaintance with his erstwhile colleagues. Perhaps his old colleagues might have asked him for clarification with regard to the current files as Mr.Subba Rao is a knowledgeable person. No evidence was adduced during the course of the enquiry to prove the charge that he was employed by the applicant. The R.E.O. admitted during the course of enquiry that the applicant had engaged Ch. Subba Rao has no evidence at all. Hence the finding is incorrect, iii. Regarding Charge-IV : the presenting officer during the course of enquiry admitted that the charge-IV was covered in the government Memo No.1169A/ig.VI(1)/2010-3, dated 18.12.2010 (at charge-ill therein). The applicant submits that Audit Sub- Registrar on 19.02.2006 had accompanied the applicant to S.R.O., Patamata to conduct internal audit. The Senior Asst, attended sub treasury office on official work. The solitary attender had gone for lunch as it was lunch hour, hence the office was temporarily closed for safety of official records and also to avoid menace of monkeys as such no dereliction of duty. The applicant further submits that the office of the Audit District Registrar is not a service office for delivery of services such as issuance of encumbrance certificates, certified copies, sale of judicial and non-judicial stamps and registration of documents etc. The closure of office is not intentional as the entire staff is on audit 7 W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022 duty at different places (sub registrar offices). The enquiring authority arrived at incorrect inference that Audit District Registrar's office should be kept open during office hours. The charge framed by the government in G.O.Rt.No.1474, dated 13.12.2011 already stood for consideration in Memo No.1169A/ig.VI(1)/2010-3, dated 18.12.2010 and hence the government has no jurisdiction to reopen the same set of charge which amounts to nothing but res judicata and the same is non est in the eye of law. iv. Regarding Charge-V ; the presenting officer stated that he does not have record to say that 2 separate tour programmes were issued by the applicant. Due to the shortage of staff, tour programme was telephonically informed and subsequently the tour programme was dispatched to the concerned sub registrars by ordinary post. The preliminary enquiry officer when questioned to inform for which month the tour programme was not dispatched, he answered that he did not have information. The applicant submits that shortage of staff [one Attender and Typist] is the sole reason for not informing tour programme in advance, in writing. Hence, the findings are incorrect. The petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceeding was not concluded within a period of three to six months of its initiation as per G.O.Ms.No.679, G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008; but, the incident relates to the year 2005-2009, the charges were framed on 13.12.2011, the last sitting of enquiry was on 29.06.2015, the enquiry report was submitted on 19.11.2015 and finally, the punishment was imposed on 20.04.2017 with abnormal delay. b. v\ \ 8 W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022 The petitioner further stated that she filed O.A.No.7055 of 2018 aggrieved by the charges framed against her regarding registering Grama Kantam lands and the same was pending. The respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents narrating the facts above noted. It is further stated that the petitioner filed petitioner has filed review petition before government 24.10.2017, re-iterating the same contentions raised by her during the enquiry and on the representation submitted by her to the show cause notice issued by the government vide memo dated 06.10.2016. The government, after examining the review petition, observed that the petitioner did not submit any valid grounds other than those raised earlier and that the review petition has no merits to consider and is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the government has rejected the review petition filed by her vide G.O.Rt.No.5, Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department, dated 02.01.2018. Hence, the respondents prayed to dismiss the petition. c. 5. on Sri Vuyyuru Ram Manohar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I, placed on record the written instructions of the respondent No.3 issued vide Letter No.M/P/53/2013, dated 07.04.2025 and submitted that the provisional pension had been paid to the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.21, Revenue (Vigilance - II) Department, dated 08.01.2015, and an amount of Rs.4,99,131/- had been sanctioned to the petitioner towards G.P.F. amount. He further stated that the respondent No.3 had sanctioned encashment of earned leaves vide Procgs.No.E1/7464/2013, dated 25.07.2017. 6. 7. The petitioner is seeking re-appreciation of the evidence in relation of the Charges-ll to V. This is not an appeal. The petitioner did 9 W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022 not avail the remedy of appeal as per the rules under which the enquiry was held. It is pertinent to note the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. S.Sree Rama Rao\ wherein the scope of the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to departmental enquiries was held as follows: “7. ...The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant; it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very 1963 see Online Se 6 K 10 W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022 face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution.” no The petitioner has not shown how the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse being against statutory rules or rules of natural justice or the enquiry was not held fairly. 8. The Charge-11 is for non-maintenance of Stock Register to avoid accounting, for which the petitioner contends that the embezzlement was not proved. If it is maintained, the petitioner can show it and therefore, the answer of the petitioner noted is not significant to interfere in the writ petition. 9. With regard to the Charge-Ill about engaging the retired officer to assist the petitioner in official duties, direct evidence cannot be expected. The enquiry officer dealt with all such circumstances that are sufficient to prove this charge. Hence, the findings need no interference in the writ petition. 10. 11. Nextiy, the Charge-IV is regarding deputation of the staff and running the office from her residence through the retired officer, where as the punishment of ‘censure’ was ordered vide Memo No.1169A/ig.VI(1 )/2010-3, dated 18.12.2010, with regard to keeping the 11 W.P.(A.T.) No.183 of 2022 office under lock and key during office hours, on 09.02.2009. Hence the substance of charges is different, though event may be the The last Charge held proved is Charge-V regarding not dispatching the tour programme of the petitioner in advance. The petitioner answered that it was due to shortage of staff, but she did not deny the substance of charge. Before the enquiry officer, the witness denied advance information. There is no evidence to show that she had telephonically informed. Though she stated before the enquiry officer that this charge was covered by the proceedings by which ‘censure’ was ordered (stated above), there is no such charge covered in that proceeding. For any reason, this Court doesn’t find meddle with the finding of the enquiry officer on this charge also. Thus, the petitioner could not establish any ground to the jurisdiction of this Court as held in the above cited decision. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. same. 12. any reason to 13. exercise 14. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// KSECTION OFFICER To. 1. OneCCto SRI. AMARA RAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC] ^ 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 ORDER WP(AT).No.183 of 2022 DISMISSED THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS