I ■ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARYy^^^ ' TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 1700 OF 2012 i[-' o w cx Between: N.R. Krishna Reddy, S/o. N. Ratna Reddy, Aged about 47 years. Asst. Executive Officer working in O/o. Regional Jt. Commissioner of Endowments, Multi Zone II, Tirupati. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Vig-IV.3) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary. 2. Sri Kalahastheeswara Swamy Devastanam, Kalahasti, Chittoor District Rep. by its Executive Officer. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent i.e.. Executive Officer of Sri Kalahastheeswara Swamy Devastanam, Kalahasti passed in Proceedings in Rc.No. A1/573/2010 dated 11.12.2010 revering the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistance Cadre Typist and consequently the 1® respondent modifying the order issued in Memo No.49200A/ig.lV(3)/2010-4, dated 09.09.2011 to that of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, as bad illegal, arbitrary, opposed to law and violation of principles of natural justice. ¥ f.A. NO: 2 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 2109 OF 2012^ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be ^pl^ased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for being promoted as Incharge Assistant Commissioner, pending disposal of the writ petition. /• f V I.A. NO: 3 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 2110 OF 2012^ 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 suspend the proceedings of the Government passed in Memo. No.49200A/ig.lV(3)/2010-4, dated 09.09.2011 to the extent of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, pending disposal of the writ petition. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WVMP. NO: 1996 OF 201?) Between: Sri Kalahastheeswara Swamy Devastanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Kalahasti, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER/2'’‘^ RESPONDENT AND 1. N.R. Krishna Reddy, S/o. N. Ratna Reddy, Aged about 47 years. Asst. Executive Officer working in O/o. Regional Jt. Commissioner of Endowments, Multi Zone II, Tirupati. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Vig-IV.3) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments, Boggulakunta, Tilak Road, Abids, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS «!t\ 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 vacate the interim direction granted in WP No. 1700 of 2012 dated 25-01-2012. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI E. SAMBASIVA PRATAP, SC FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010048692012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY); THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No:1700 OF 2012 Between: N.R.Krishna Reddy ...Petitioner AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue (Vig-IV.3) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Principal Secretary And two others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Vidya Sagar Counsel for the Respondents: Ld. Govt. Pleader for Endowments The Court made the following order: 1. The petitioner is challenging the proceedings, dated 09.09.2011, of the 1®* respondent modifying the order, dated 11.12.2010, of the 2"^^ respondent, to the extent of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. nd 2. The petitioner was appointed as a steno-cum-typist in the 2 respondent devasthanam and was promoted to the cadre of Senior f -2- W.P. No.l700of 2012 Assistant on 01.08.1999. He was promoted to the cadre of Superintendent on 15.03.2001 and subsequently promoted to the cadre of Assistant Executive Officer on 29.12.2006. The petitioner was entrusted the job of stores and temple administration. Till the date of transfer, the petitioner was continuing in the 2"'' respondent devasthanam. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, vide order dated 01.10.2010, the Executive Officer of the 2"^ respondent devasthanam issued a show cause notice-cum-provisional conclusion order, concluding that the petitioner was responsible for misappropriation of stock of the devasthanam and has given a finding that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing and felt it appropriate to impose the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted his explanation and thereafter, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reversion as Junior Assistant from the cadre of the Assistant Executive Officer vide order dated 11.12.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Vide order, dated 09.09.2011, the appellate authority set aside the order of reversion, however imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. -3- W.P. No.1700 of 2012 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a co-employee of the petitioner has filed a complaint against the petitioner under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further submitted that the investigating officer, after conducting a preliminary enquiry, found that the complaint was false and motivated. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the charges were not proved against the petitioner, the respondents could not have imposed the major punishment of deferment of two increments with cumulative effect. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not responsible for the purchase of any stock, and the Executive Officer was responsible for the purchase of stock. The role of the petitioner is only to call for the quotations and submit them to the Executive Officer for placing the orders. It is also submitted that the petitioner was implicated without any basis. It is also submitted that the enquiry officer who issued the show cause notice himself conducted the enquiry and imposed the punishment. Such procedure is a violation of service jurisprudence and that considering the same, this Court granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings, vide order dated 25.01.2012. -4- W.P. No.1700 of 2012 6. The respondents in their counter submitted that the disciplinary authority proceedings cannot be interfered with as they are quasi judicial proceedings. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that during the physical verification, the authorities concerned found the shortage of stock 20 items and found excess 20 items and held that the petitioner is responsible for misappropriation of the stock in the godown. Challenging the order of reversion, the petitioner filed W.P. No.32418 of 2010 before this Court. This Court disposed off the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner also filed W.P. No.25205 of 2010 challenging the order of suspension during the pendency of the departmental proceedings and the same was disposed off with a direction to the conclude the departmental proceedings within a period of four months. It is further submitted that as per Section 37 of the Endowments Act, the Executive Officer is the competent authority to impose penalties after following the prescribed procedure. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is now promoted to the cadre of Deputy Commissioner vide proceedings dated 18.01.2025. 8. Considering the material on record and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the procedure adopted by the -5- W.P.No.1700 of 2012' respondents in conducting the enquiry and imposing punishment by the same officer is not only a violation of the principles of natural justice but also a violation of procedure. The enquiry officer and the officer imposing the punishment cannot be the authority. On these grounds, the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dt.09.09.2011, to the extent of imposing stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, is hereby set aside. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall same stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on this Tuesday, Eighteenth day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Five. Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAC ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^ % SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Vig-IV.3) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Executive Officer, Sri Kalahastheeswara Swamy Devastanam, Kalahasti, Chittoor District. 3. The Commissioner of Endowments, Vijayawada. 4. One CC to Sri M. Vidyasagar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, SC for Endowments [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:18/02/2025 ORDER andh^ fg 2 1 MAR 2025 . Current Section WP.No.1700 of 2012 >5 13» Si ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS