APHC010790332014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 3494/2014 Between: 1. SUDHAKAR RAO, S/O LATE MASTANAIAH,, OCC: ASSISTANT GRADE 0/O. DISTRICT MANAGER, A.P. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., NELLORE ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 6-3-655/1/A, CIVIL SUPPLIES BHAVAN, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. JOINT COLLECTOR CUM EX OFFICIO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AP CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., NELLORE DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BHARAT BABU.N Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 2. KALAMATA R BABU(SC AP CIVIL SUPPL CORPN) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 15.09.2006 and the consequential proceedings dated 01.07.2008, 22.12.2010 and 12.09.2013. 2. The petitioner was working as Assistant Grade-I in the office of District Manager, A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation. The petitioner while working at Buchireddypalem the Vigilance and Enforcement department raided the premises of Bhagyalaxmi Rice Mill and found a heap of rice in the Rice Mill. The petitioner has issued a charge memo to submit an explanation as to how the heap of rice which was meant for Sampoorna Grameena Rojgar Youjna rice was diverted to a private Rice Mill. It was alleged that the petitioner was instrumental in facilitating the transfer of the said rice to a private rice mill. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.07.2004 and an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 01.08.2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry officer did not find the petitioner responsible for the stock, which was found at the rice mill and that the petitioner's involvement was also not found in the said issue of the alleged transfer of ‘Sampoorna Grameena Rojgar Youjna’ rice. The petitioner was subsequently reinstated into duty. However, the disciplinary authority has passed an order of punishment, whereby one increment of the petitioner was stopped with cumulative effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the disciplinary authority disbelieved the enquiry officer's report and without conducting any separate investigation or a fresh 3 enquiry on presumptions had proceeded further and imposed a severe punishment. It is also submitted that the said rice which was initially alleged as rice belonging to SGRY was subsequently released to the owners after the Joint Collector, Nellore, found that there was no evidence to relate the said rice to SGRY rice and the entire quantity, which was seized at that point of time was handed over back to the MLS point. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority has also ignored the order of the Joint Collector dated 03.09.2007 and proceeded to impose a punishment on the petitioner in a disproportionate manner. It is submitted that pending consideration of the writ petition, the petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation. It is submitted that when the rice which was allegedly seized under the notion that it was the PDS rice meant for SGRY rice and subsequently, the said rice was released after the Joint Collector found no evidence to consider the same as rice meant for SGRY and released the same to the concerned claimant. The role of the petitioner in alleged transportation of the rice meant for SGRY is completely unfounded. It is submitted that the discipline authority and the appellate authority have simply ignored the orders passed by the Joint Collector dated 03.09.2007. The Disciplinary Authority, without assigning any reasons, has decided that the Enquiry Officer has failed to consider various issues and on such presumption deemed it appropriate to impose the punishment of withholding of annual increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. 4 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner had challenged the punishment order primarily on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has exonerated the petitioner’s of all charges. However, the Joint Collector disbelieved the report of the Enquiry Officer and ordered for confiscation of the rice which was found at Bhagyalaxmi Rice Mill. It is submitted that the Contractor who transported the rice to the mill had filed W.P.No.14030 of 2009 seeking refund and also disposal of his appeal. This Court has directed the appeal to be disposed of expeditiously and accordingly, the Joint Collector has released the stocks after considering the claim of the claimant therein. It is submitted that the release of the stocks to the Contractor cannot ipso facto absolve the petitioner of his statutory duties. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that the stock at MLS point would have to be passed on to the beneficiaries instead of passing on the same to private Rice Mills. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Perused the record. 7. The impugned proceedings, imposing the punishment of withholding annual grade increment with cumulative effect, in pursuance of Rule 25 (1C) of conduct, discipline and appeal regulations of the 1st respondent, would have to be set aside for the following reasons. 5 8. The alleged PDS rice, which was seized at Bhagyalaxmi Rice Mill form subject of the order passed by the Joint Collector dated 03.09.2007. The Joint Collector had categorically held that there was no evidence to determine the identification of the said rice as that of SGRY and no relevant material like empty bags, sealed bags with government markings were found or seized and in absence of proper identification, the same cannot be classified as rice belonging to SGRY. The District Manager, Civil Supplies Corporation was further directed to return the total quantity of rice seized as per the record. This order was completely ignored by the appellate authorities, when considering the appeal of the petitioner. The reason assigned by the Discipline Authority in the order dated 15.09.2006 would reveal that the Disciplinary Authority has disregarded the report of the Enquiry Officer and at the same time has not explained as to in what manner the Disciplinary Authority can fixed the blame on the petitioner for the alleged transportation of rice belonging to SGRY scheme to a private Rice Mill. In absence of the finding to that effect and in the absence of any other statements recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and in the absence of the Disciplinary Authority appointing any further enquiry into the issue. The impugned order is purely on surmises and assumptions cannot withstand the scrutiny of law and logic. 9. On these considerations, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings dated 15.09.2006 and the subsequent proceedings dated 01.07.2008, 22.12.2010 and 12.09.2013 are hereby set aside. It is made clear that the respondents shall have to release the increments due 6 payable to the petitioner within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of received of this order. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.19.02.2026 SR