APHC010561902023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE T TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT APPEAL Nos W.A.No.1081 of 2023 Between: 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPT., AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, VIJAYAWADA. 1. INJETI RAJASEKHAR, OCC. INDUSTRIAL P R/o. H.No.13-285, 1st VTC PORANKI, PENAMALURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1 WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos: 1081 of 2023 & 941 of 2024 THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPT., SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ...APPELLANT(S) AND INJETI RAJASEKHAR, S/O.INJETI SUBBA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION OFFICER (DISMISSED), 285, 1st FLOOR, CHETAN SADAN, DONKA ROAD, VTC PORANKI, PENAMALURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3526] DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AT DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ...APPELLANT(S) S/O.INJETI SUBBA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS, ROMOTION OFFICER (DISMISSED), FLOOR, CHETAN SADAN, DONKA ROAD, VTC PORANKI, PENAMALURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ...RESPONDENT 2 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. MR.MOTUPALLI VIJAY KUMAR, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL, ASSISTED BY MR.MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI 3 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 The Court made the following common judgment : (Per Hon’ble NJS, J) The issue involved in the present appeals is identical and the same are disposed of by this Common Order. 2. The respondents herein challenging the Government Orders in dismissing them from service on the ground of conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, filed W.P.No.28206 of 2022 and W.P.No.378 of 2020 respectively. Aggrieved by the orders passed in the said writ petitions, the State preferred the above appeals. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the respective writ petitions. 4. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.378 of 2020 was working as Deputy Surveyor. He was convicted by the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Kurnool vide order dated 04.06.2019 in C.C.31 of 2015. Against the said order, he filed Criminal Appeal No.456 of 2019, wherein the sentence of imprisonment was suspended and the matter is pending adjudication. The petitioner in W.P.No.28206 of 2022 was working as Industrial Promotion Officer, Office of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Vijayawada. The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada by an order dated 22.09.2015 in C.C.No.20 of 2006, convicted him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 5. The Government in the light of the orders passed by the competent Court, in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (x) of Rule 9 r/w Clause (i) of Rule 25 of the A.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the A.P.C.C.A. Rules’), dismissed the writ petitioners from service vide G.O.Ms.No.354, Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department dated 09.08.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.73, Industries & Commerce (Vigilance) Department dated 19.05.2016. 6. Insofar as W.P.No.378 of 2020 challenging G.O.Ms.No.354 dated 09.08.2019, a learned Single Judge while opining that no enquiry was conducted before the dismissal of the petitioner, which is a major punishment, set aside the said G.O. However, liberty was granted to initiate the disciplinary proceedings and to take action by following due process of law. 7. Insofar as the other writ petition No.28206 of 2022 challenging G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 19.05.2016, another learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition in terms of the orders dated 22.10.2019 and 18.07.2022 in Writ Petition No.16480 of 2019 and W.P.No.378 of 2020 respectively. 8. Mr.G.Raju, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, assailing the said orders, made elaborate submissions by referring to the decisions filed along with Memo dated 07.07.2025, which would be discussed at the appropriate place. 9. Referring to the APCCA Rules, more particularly Rule 9 (x) and Rule 25 (i) of the said Rules he contends that in view of the orders of conviction and 5 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 sentence of imprisonment passed against the writ petitioners by the Competent Court/s, the exercise of powers by the State Government under the said Rules, cannot be found fault with. He submits that as the charges of corruption against the writ petitioners were proved, the Government is well within its authority in imposing the major penalty of dismissal from service on the writ petitioners. He submits that pendency of the appeals against the orders of conviction and order of suspension therein, is of no consequence. 10. In elaboration, he submits that on mere suspension of the sentence, the conviction does not cease to be operative and the orders passed in the above said writ petitions, without examining the issues with reference to the powers of the Government as envisaged under the CCA Rules are unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 11. Referring to the observations made by the learned Single Judge, in the order dated 18.07.2022 in W.P.No.378 of 2020 that no enquiry was conducted for the dismissal of the petitioner therein, which is a major punishment, the learned Government Pleader would contend that there is no requirement to issue a show cause notice, much less, conduct of an enquiry, as the competent Criminal Court, had convicted the writ petitioners and the issue of notice is an empty formality, in such cases. He also distinguished the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sankardass v. Union of India and Another1 and Risal Singh v. State of Haryana and Others2 relied on by 1 (1985) 2 SCC 358 2 (2014) 13 SCC 244 6 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.54 of 2021, while dismissing the Appeal preferred by the State against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16480 of 2019 vide Order dated 18.10.2022. Contending that the public servants who suffered conviction orders on charges of corruption by a competent Criminal Court can be dismissed from service, without further enquiry, he submits that in the event of setting aside of the order of conviction by the Appellate Court, the writ petitioners can claim reinstatement or the service benefits. He seeks to allow the appeals by placing reliance on the decisions in Deputy Director of Collegiate Education (Administration), Madras v. S.Nagoor Meera 3 , K.C.Sareen v. CBI, Chandigarh4, State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Rajasekhar & Others5 State of Andhra Pradesh v. J.Ganesh 6 , Union of India & Others v. M.V.Mohanan Nair7 and M.C.Mehta v. Union of India & Others8. 12. On the other hand, Mr.Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel made submissions to sustain the orders under challenge. Placing strong reliance on the decision dated 18.10.2022 in W.A.No.54 of 2024 referred to supra, he contends that as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sankar Dass’s case, the power available to the Government has to be exercised for proper and valid reasons, but not arbitrarily. He contends that in the light of the said decision, the Government has to exercise its power fairly, justly and 3 (1995) 3 SCC 377 4 (2001) 6 SCC 584 5 2010(1) ALT 468 6 2023 LawSuit(AP) 243 7 (2020) 5 SCC 421 8 (1999) 6 SCC 237 7 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 reasonably. However, from a bare reading of the Government Orders impugned in the writ petitions, it is discernible that the Government only on the premise that the writ petitioners were convicted, dismissed them from the service, without examining as to whether such a drastic action of major punishment of dismissal was warranted at all. Contending that the exercise of power by the Government in the instant cases was not just and reasonable, as such there is no illegality in the orders under challenge, he seeks dismissal of the writ appeals. 13. Drawing the attention of this Court to order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 03.02.2023 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).1858- 1859/2023, the learned Senior Counsel further contends that the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.54 of 2021 upholding the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16480 of 2019 which forms basis for disposal of writ petition No.28206 of 2022 was not interfered with and in view of the dismissal of petition seeking Special Leave to Appeal, the orders under challenge warrants no interference. 14. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 15. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the point that arises for adjudication is whether exercise of the power by the State Government as envisaged in C.C.A.Rules is not sustainable on the ground that no enquiry was conducted as also that appeals filed against conviction orders are pending and suspension of the sentence was in operation? 8 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 The APCCA Rules inter alia contemplates the procedure with regard to disciplinary proceedings against the Government employees and imposition of penalties. Rule 25 of the said Rules invoked by the Government for imposing punishment of dismissal through the G.Os., mentioned above may be reproduced hereunder for ready reference: Rule 25. Special procedure in certain cases : - Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 20 to Rule 24 – (i) Where penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or [Misconduct leads to a penalty imposed as per 1st proviso under Rule 9 (ix) of these rules, or] [Added by G.O.Ms.No.127, G.A.(Ser-C) Dept., dt.15-9-2017]. (ii) Where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or (iii) Where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these Rules. the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit: [xxx] (Proviso deleted by G.O.Rt.No.6421, Genl. Admn. (Ser.-C), dt.29-12-93) Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule. [Provided further that no such consultation with the Commission is necessary before any orders are made under clause (i) of this rule.] [Added by G.O.Ms.No.240, G.A. (Ser-C) Dept., dt.14-8-2003] Rule 9 of the said Rules deals with penalties both minor and major and Rule 9 Sub Rule (x), which is of immediate relevance reads as follows: “(x) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. [Provided that in all proved cases of misappropriation, bribery, bigamy, corruption, moral turpitude, forgery and outraging the modesty of women, the penalty of dismissal from service shall be imposed]. [Subs. By G.O.Ms.No.458, G.A.D., Dt.22-09-2009]” 9 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 16. A Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.8000 of 2009 & batch on which reliance is placed by the learned Government Pleader while referring to the above said Rules, extensively dealt with the matter by looking into the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Division Bench, referring to the various contentions advanced on both sides formulated a question as to whether the State / Disciplinary Authority has power to pass orders of dismissal or removal based on the conduct of the Government servant which led to a conviction in a criminal case? 17. In Para No.21 of the said order, the Division Bench held that Rule 25 of the CCA Rules r/w Rule 9 and the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly support the contention that the disciplinary authority is specifically bestowed with a power to pass orders of removal or dismissal. The Hon’ble Division Bench by referring to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the decision of another Division Bench in W.P.No.16102 of 2007 is to be treated as per incuriam. In the said decision, the Government order dismissing the employee was set aside inter alia on the premise that against the order of conviction, a criminal appeal was filed and the sentence of imprisonment was suspended, that in view of the pendency of the criminal appeal as well as suspension of sentence imposed by ACB Court, the conviction order has not attained finality. Dealing with one of the contentions that the Disciplinary Authority / State is acting selectively, the Division Bench in its order dated 17.11.2009 deprecating such practices opined as follows: 10 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 “27. We are of the view that the State as a model employer cannot act in such selective manner. The enunciation of the legal position as has been discussed above is well settled by several pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court. The observations of the Supreme Court in Sareen’s case (4 supra) in particular leave no room for doubt as to how the State/disciplinary authority must act in a situation where the government employee is convicted of a serious offence. The power of dismissal or removal exercised by the State/disciplinary authority in such cases has been held to be in public interest. It has also been held that continuing such officer in service would not only be against public interest but would also demoralize other honest officers. Furthermore, the action and treatment towards government employees by the State cannot be discriminatory or selective. The aforesaid selective treatment by the State /disciplinary authority would, therefore, be contrary to public interest apart from violative of law declared by the Supreme Court…… “ 18. The above judgment of the Division Bench which is directly on the issue of exercise of powers by the Government under CCA Rules, appears to have not been brought to the notice of the Court at the time of disposal of the subject matter writ petitions. Be that as it may. 19. In Deputy Director of Collegiate Education case referred to supra, the respondent was convicted under Section 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He filed an appeal in the High Court against the conviction and sentence. The sentence was suspended, he was released on bail. In view of the conviction, a show cause notice was issued to him as to why he should not be dismissed from service. Challenging the same, he approached Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, which declared that the show cause notice is not sustainable in Law, till the disposal of the Criminal Appeal. Dealing with the correctness of the said order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the matter with reference to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and provisos thereto. At Para No.7, it categorically held that “merely because the sentence is suspended and / or, the accused is released on bail, 11 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 the conviction does not cease to be operative.” Finding fault with the order of the Tribunal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para Nos.8 and 9 held as follows; “8. We need not, however, concern ourselves any more with the power of the appellate court under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the reason that what is relevant for clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is the “conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge” and there can be no question of suspending the conduct. We are, therefore, of the opinion that taking proceedings for and passing orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of a government servant who has been convicted by a criminal court is not barred merely because the sentence or order is suspended by the appellate court or on the ground that the said government servant- accused has been released on bail pending the appeal. 9. The Tribunal seems to be of the opinion that until the appeal against the conviction is disposed of, action under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) is not permissible. We see no basis or justification for the said view. The more appropriate course in all such cases is to take action under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) once a government servant is convicted of a criminal charge and not to wait for the appeal or revision, as the case may be. If, however, the government servant-accused is acquitted on appeal or other proceeding, the order can always be revised and if the government servant is reinstated, he will be entitled to all the benefits to which he would have been entitled to had he continued in service. The other course suggested, viz., to wait till the appeal, revision and other remedies are over, would not be advisable since it would mean continuing in service a person who has been convicted of a serious offence by a criminal court……” 20. In K.C.Sareen’s case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para No.12 observed as follows: “12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of corrupt public servants could garner momentum to cripple the social order if such men are allowed to continue to manage and operate public institutions. When a public servant is found guilty of corruption after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a court of law, judiciousness demands that he should be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or revisional forum has decided to entertain his challenge and to go into the issues and findings made against such public servants once again should not even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he is judicially absolved from such findings by reason of suspension of the order of conviction, it is public interest which suffers and sometimes, 12 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 even irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public office, it would impair the morale of the other persons manning such office, and consequently that would erode the already shrunk confidence of the people in such public institutions besides demoralising the other honest public servants who would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the convicted person. If honest public servants are compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt officers on account of the suspension of the conviction, the fallout would be one of shaking the system itself. Hence it is necessary that the court should not aid the public servant who stands convicted for corruption charges to hold only (sic) public office until he is exonerated after conducting a judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional level. It is a different matter if a corrupt public officer could continue to hold such public office even without the help of a court order suspending the conviction.” 21. A Division Bench of this Court in J.Ganesh case referred to supra in its judgment dated 01.03.2023 had an occasion to deal with similar set of facts as in the present cases. The State challenged the order of the erstwhile A.P.Administrative Tribunal in setting aside the Government Orders issued in exercise of powers under the CCA Rules dismissing the respondent / applicant on the ground that he was convicted for the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Division Bench referring to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, set aside the orders of the Tribunal. 22. In the light of the above stated legal position and the specific contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.378 of 2020, to which there is no consideration at all, the matter warrants interference by this Court. 23. Insofar as the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel with reference to the order in W.P.No.16480 of 2019 and the decision in Sankar Dass, this Court with due respect, is not inclined to accept the same. The said 13 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 decisions are distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 24. In W.P.No.16480 of 2019, wherein G.O.Rt.No.598 dated 17.09.2019 was under challenge, it appears that there is no specific paragraph referring to the consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case by the Government before taking a decision for imposing punishment of dismissal in view of the conviction under corruption charges. Whereas, in the Government orders impugned in the cases on hand, not only was there a specific mention about the orders of conviction but also application of mind by the Government to the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, Sankar Dass is an exceptional case, wherein the learned Magistrate opined that Sankar Dass was a victim of adverse circumstances. In the facts of the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while opining that the power like every other power, has to be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably held that the penalty of the dismissal from service imposed upon the appellant / Sankar Dass is whimsical. 25. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, the writ petitioners are convicted on serious charges of corruption. Though in the orders under challenge, a view was taken that without enquiry, punishment of major penalty was imposed, in the light of the above stated legal position, this Court is not inclined to subscribe to the said view. Further, as opined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the event, the orders of conviction are set aside by 14 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 the Appellate Court, the writ petitioners can seek reinstatement or claim the benefits. While it is no doubt correct to state that the Government has to exercise its powers in a just and reasonable manner before passing of orders of punishment of dismissal, non-conduct of enquiry when the order of punishment is based on the conviction by a competent Criminal Court on charges of corruption do not vitiate the Government decisions. 26. Considering the matter in its entirety and for the reasons / conclusions recorded supra, the orders under challenge are not sustainable and the same are accordingly set aside. 27. In the result, the Writ Appeals are allowed by setting aside the orders in W.P.Nos.28206 of 2022 & 378 of 2020 dated 26.06.2023 and 18.07.2022 respectively. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Dt. 23.09.2025 BLV 15 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT APPEAL Nos: 1081 of 2023 & 941 of 2024 (Per Ninala Jayasurya, J) Date: 23.09.2025 BLV 16 NJS, J & TRR, J WA_1081_2023 & 941_2024