APHC010428552021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 1259/2021 Between: 1. R RAJASEKHAR, S/O NARAYAN RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, DEPUTY RANGE OFFICER, FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICE, COLLECT ORATE PREMISES, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, , SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, , VISAKHAPATNAM CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HEAD OF FOREST FORCE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT, FOREST, SCIENCE ANDTECHOLOGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): call for the records relating to and connected with Impugned orders Issued In procgs.Ref.No.1634/2012/M8 dated 24.4.2013 and Its consequential orders Procgs.No. 23054/2013/K4 dt.26.3.2014 and Memo.No.2265 /Sec.IV/ p. 2 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021 A1/2017 dt.7.7.2017 of the respondents 2 to 4 respectively and set aside the same by holding it as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, discrimination, contrary to the rules and violation of the constitutional provisions and consequently direct the respondents to release the increments and other benefits which were withheld due to the impugned punishment. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Mrs. B. Sree Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, for the respondents. 2. The petitioner originally instituted O.A.No.3089 of 2017 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad (for short „the Tribunal‟), assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide reference No.1634/2012/M8 dated 24.04.2013, imposing punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with immediate effect, while modifying the punishment imposed by respondent No.1 vide proceedings Rc.No.3864/2004- A7 dated 16.10.2011, wherein punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was awarded, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of doctrine of proportionality. Page 3 of 11 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021 3. The brief facts of the case germane to adjudicate the issue are: The petitioner, while working as Forest Section Officer, Kottur, exhibited gross neglect and hence Respondent No.1 issued a charge memo vide R.C.No.3854/08/A3 dated 25.10.2008, framing the following two charges: “i) That the said Sri R. Rajasekhar, Forest Section Officer, Kotturu Section during his tenure had shown gross neglect by committing irregularities in assessment of valuation of trees in Land Acquisition of B.R.R Vamsadara Project in Sy.Nos.135/4, 135/9 and 135/10 of Anthili village of Heeramandalam Mandal of Pathapatnam Range. The Enumeration lists duly assessed the value drawn up by him and signed was got countersigned by the Forest Range Officer, Pathapatnam without verification and processed to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit-II, Hiramandalam for release of higher amounts than the eligible amounts. But he did not take action to get the valuation reports revised duly verified and inspected the survey report, resulted to invite complaints from the public and caused to spoil the image of the department. Hence, the charge. ii) That the said Sri R. Rajasekhar, Forest Section Officer, Kotturu Section during his tenure mislead the higher officials by submitting false report involving other subordinates being the leader of the team in arriving higher rates for the valuation of the trees than the eligible and signed on the list and submitted to the Forest Range officer, Pathapatnam. Hence, the charge. That Sri R. Rajasekhar, Forest Section Officer, Kotturu Section failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty unbecoming of a Government employee and violated Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rule 1964.” p. 4 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021 ii) The petitioner submitted his explanation/defence, dated 17.05.2010. Thereafter, respondent No.1-Inquiry Authority –cum- Disciplinary Authority, by proceedings, dated 16.10.2011, awarded a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2. The appellate authority, by proceedings dated 24.04.2013, modified the order passed by respondent No.1 and reduced the punishment to stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, which is to be implemented concurrently. Against the order of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed O.A.3089 of 2017. 4. After the abolition of the Tribunal, O.A.3089 of 2017 was transmitted to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, and the same is numbered as W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that respondent No.1 failed to adhere to the procedure laid under Rules 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short „the Rules‟). The Disciplinary Authority, without considering the petitioner‟s explanation, awarded a major penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The authority also failed to furnish the inquiry report to the petitioner. The appellate authority, having found that no monetary loss was caused to the Government, ought to have allowed the appeal by setting aside the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority; p. 5 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021 however, it modified the punishment and awarded stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, and the same is violative of the doctrine of proportionality. 6. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, while supporting the orders passed by the authorities, would contend that the conduct of the petitioner, in furnishing the report without obtaining the countersignature of the Forest Range Officer, Pathaptnam, itself would constitute misconduct and violates Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The appellate authority, being the final fact-finding authority, considered all the relevant aspects and modified the punishment awarded by the Primary Authority. 7. The point for consideration is whether the order passed by respondent No.2 vide proceedings Ref.No.1634/2012/M8 dated 24.04.2013, partly modifying the order passed by respondent No.1, is illegally sustainable? 8. Shorn of all the details, there is no dispute regarding the issuance of the charge memo and the submission of an explanation. A perusal of Articles of Charges would indicate that the petitioner, Forest Section Officer, is alleged to have committed irregularity in the assessment and valuation of trees and submitted a report to the Land Acquisition Officer without getting countersigned by the Forest Range Officer and further misled the higher officials, being the leader of the team. Page 6 of 11 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021 9. The petitioner, in his explanation, stated that no departmental guidelines or norms were prescribed as to the assessment. As per the oral instructions of the officials, he had taken up the work to achieve the objective of the project with little experience. The petitioner also tried to explain that he was not supplied with any sketches except a copy of the notification. The valuation of trees and preparation of enumeration lists were done based on the information furnished by the landowners. The petitioner alone has not conducted the assessment, and a team has done the work. It is also pleaded that the mistake/discrepancy in identifying the actual trees applicable to three survey numbers is due to overlapping the areas, absence of demarcation of lands and non-assistance of a surveyor. It is also stated that no financial loss was caused to the Government. 10. The Disciplinary Authority, having extracted the explanation and the Articles of Charges, recorded the following remarks: “Verified with connected records, statements and explanation fo the Delinquent Officer and found all the Delinquent Officer is guilty of the charges leveled against him. It is a clear case of breach of trust and the Delinquent Officer tried to cheat the Government by escalating the volumes / values of the trees enumerated in the villages where the lands are acquired by the government for the public purpose. The timely action taken by the Joint Collector Could prevent the loss which might has sustained by the Government. That the District Administrative contemplated to take criminal case against the forest staff speak volume about the intentional breach of trust by the forest officer involved in assessment of the value of the produce. Page 7 of 11 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021 Added to this, the department prestige had been at stake as all the press reported the misdeeds of the forest staff in assessing the values of the trees. Keeping all these in view the following punishment is awarded.” 11. Eventually, the Disciplinary Authority passed the following order: “Basing on the material evidence available and rules in vogue, the charged officer Sri R. Rajasekhar, Forest Section officer of Kotturu section of Pathapatnam Range of Srikakulam Division is awarded with a punishment of “Stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect” and this punishment is operatable after completion of earlier punishment issued in the Rc.No.1150/2009-A7 dt.28.08.2011.” 12. Against the above order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority recorded a finding that the Disciplinary Authority failed to record a finding as to whether the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The Appellate Authority also found that the procedure prescribed for communication of rates of valuation of trees in land acquisition cases has not followed. The communication between the two departments should be made through a proper channel. However, the same was deviated by the petitioner. The appellate authority further observed that the mistake happened only in respect of three beneficiaries due to wrong measurements / wrong rates / wrong survey numbers, etc. and recorded a finding that no monetary loss was caused to the government and no criminal case was filed against the petitioner. Page 8 of 11 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021 13. Having recorded the findings referred to supra, the appellate authority imposed a major penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. 14. Whether the punishment imposed by the appellate authority while modifying the punishment awarded by the primary authority is proportionate needs to be considered. 15. The Hon‟ble Apex Court, in Jai Bhagwan v. Commissioner of Police and Others1, observed as under at para 10: “10. What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily rests in the discretion of the disciplinary authority. An authority sitting in appeal over any such order of punishment is by all means entitled to examine the issue regarding the quantum of punishment as much as it is entitled to examine whether the charges have been satisfactorily proved. But when any such order is challenged before a Service Tribunal or the High Court the exercise of discretion by the competent authority in determining and awarding punishment is generally respected except where the same is found to be so outrageously disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct that the Court considers it be arbitrary in that it is wholly unreasonable. The superior courts and the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality which has been gradually accepted as one of the facets of judicial review. A punishment that is so excessive or disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience of the Court is seen as unacceptable even when courts are slow and generally reluctant to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The law on the subject is p. 9 1 (2013) 11 SCC 187 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021 well settled by a series of decisions rendered by this Court. We remain content with reference to only some of them. (emphasis is added) 16. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others2, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that the Doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is otherwise within the exclusive province of the Court martial, the quantum of sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review. 17. Keeping in view the observations in the aforementioned judgments, let this Court examine whether the punishment awarded by the appellate Court is proportionate to the charge levelled against the petitioner. 18. As pointed out supra, the appellate authority observed that the Disciplinary Authority failed to record a finding as to whether the Articles of Charge framed against the petitioner were proved or not. In fact, a perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority shows that it lacks basic reasons. Even the Appellate Authority recorded a finding that, though the petitioner deviated from the procedure, no monetary loss was caused to the Government. Further, having recorded a finding that the lower staff were not guided properly, the Appellate Authority ought not to have imposed a major penalty; instead should have imposed minor punishment proportionate to the finding recorded. The punishment imposed should not be outrageously p. 10 2 (1987) 4 SCC 611 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021 disproportionate. In this case at hand, in the considered opinion of this court, the punishment imposed by the appellate authority is also outrageously disproportionate and shocks the conscience. The appellate authority should have imposed a minor penalty. 19. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide reference No.1634/2012/M8 dated 24.04.2013, imposing punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with immediate effect and implementing the punishment concurrently, while modifying the punishment imposed by respondent No.1 vide proceedings Rc.No.3864/2004-A7 dated 16.10.2011, are hereby set aside. As a consequence, the proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority are also set aside. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 06.02.2026 IKN p. 11 SRS,J W.P.(A.T.) No.1259 of 2021 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION (A.T.) NO: 1259 of 2021 Date: 06.02.2026 IKN