1 Date of reserved for orders : 29.4.2026 Date of pronouncement : 09.7.2026 Date of uploading : 13.7.2026 APHC010059122023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 2925/2023 Between: 1. KAGOLANU VENKATESWARA PRASAD, S/O. LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,OCC. REVENUE INSPECTOR, R/O. D. NO. 8-165-1-12, SAISUDHAAPPARTMENT OPPOSITE ROAD, RAJIV NAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, D. NO. 189, 2ND FLOOR, HIMAGNA TOWERS, N.T.R. MAARG, LIC COLONY, B-BLOCK, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA. NTR DISTRICT, A.P. . 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 4. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LA)-CUM-ENQUIRY OFFICER, R AND R UNIT, OLD GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, ROOM NOS. 47, 48 AND 49, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI-522503 GUNTUR DIST ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Rt. No. 1024, dated 29.11.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the G.O.Rt. 1024, dated 29.11.2022, thereby directing the Respondents to treat the petitioner on par with his juniors in terms of promotions, increments and other benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 G.O.Rt.1024, dated 29.11.2022, issued by the Respondent No.5, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 receive the additional material in WP.No. 2925/2023 pending disposal of the Writ Petition before this Honourable Court IA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 grant leave to the Respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition No.2925 of 2023 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring G.O.Rt.No.1024, dated 29.11.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the G.O.Rt.1024, dated 29.11.2022, thereby directing the Respondents to treat the petitioner on par with his juniors in terms of promotions, increments and other benefits and pass….” 2. The petitioner initially appointed as Village Administrative Officer on compassionate grounds and posted at Chirikrapad Village, Zargmalli Mandal, Prakasam District in the year 1997. Vide proceedings dated 30.12.2001, the post of Village Administrative Officer was converted to that of Panchayat Secretary and the petitioner was transferred to Kothapalli Village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District. Further he was appointed as Revenue Secretary in the year 2007 and subsequently he was promoted as Village Revenue Officer vide orders dated 08.02.2007. His case was further considered and he was promoted as Revenue Inspector vide orders dated 21.8.2018. Now he is eligible and entitled for the promotion of Deputy Tahsildar post on his seniority. 3. In fact while working as Panchayat Secretary, a disciplinary case was initiated against the petitioner on 30.4.2007 by issuing articles of 4 Charges on 08.10.2007 and placed the petitioner under suspension. Despite lapse of more than a decade, when the disciplinary proceedings were not proceeded and concluded, left with no option, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.14678 of 2020 for speedy disposal of the disciplinary proceedings and the said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.3.2022 with the following order: “In view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the controversy with respect to the charges, this petition is finally disposed of with direction to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District/respondent No.2 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two (02) months from the date copy of this order is produced before the said authority in accordance with law and with due observance of the principles of natural justice." 4. Despite the above directions, when the respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was constrained to file one more writ petition i.e. W.P.No.23502 of 2022 for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar without reference to the said charge memos. While pending the said Writ Petition, the respondents have issued the impugned orders vide G.O.Rt.No.1024 dated 29.11.2022 stating that charge I is partly proved and charge II is not held proved and imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect under Rule 9 of A.P.C.A.(CC&A) Rules, 1991. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 5 5. It is contended that the impugned order is non-speaking order and without appreciating the finding of the enquiry officer the impugned orders have been passed. 6. Further, the enquiry officer has not conducted proper examination of any witnesses and without expressing anything on merits, has deliberately passed the impugned order. The fact remains that original tampered valuation certificate was never placed on record and enquiry officer has given findings based on the Xerox copies produced before the disciplinary committee and based on the said Xerox copies, concluded the enquiry holding that the petitioner has partly committed the offence. Finally contended that the disciplinary proceedings have concluded without affording any proper opportunity after lapse of 15 years and the disciplinary authority has not explained the undue delay for concluding the disciplinary proceedings. 7. Reply to the same, respondent no.3 has filed counter wherein it is stated that the Tahsildar, Zarugumalli Mandal has submitted a report on 21.3.2007 to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukurstating that Sri Kagolanu Venkateswara Prasad, Panchayat Secretary, K.Bitragunta Village has tampered the figures in the property certificate issued by him to one Gaddimadugu Nageswara Rao, Pydipadu Village of Zarugumalli Mandal. Based on the recommendations of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur and the District Collector, Prakasam, the 6 petitioner’s services were placed under suspension vide orders dated 30.4.2007 on the allegation that the Village Revenue Officer has tampered the property and valuation certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zarugumalli Mandal for Rs.90,000/- by incorporating the figures 10 in front of the figures in the fair copy of the certificate and make it as Rs.10,90,000/- with a malafide intention for doing favour to the applicant i.e. G.Nageswara Rao. 8. The Forest Settlement Officer, Ongole has been appointed to enquire into the matter and submit report and accordingly, he has submitted report on 27.7.2007 concluding that the entries made by the petitioner tantamount to tampering of records. Charges were framed against the petitioner along with Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, former Tahsildar, Zarugumalli vide articles of charges dated 08.10.2007. Apart from that, a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner and the said Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Tahsildar before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole and it as numbered as C.C.No.54/2009. 9. Further the Special Deputy Collector (LA), R&R, Ongole was appointed as enquiry officer to enquire into the charges frmaed against the petitioner and Sri K.Srinivasa Rao. 10. Learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole has passed an order in C.C.No.54/2009 observing that the prosecution 7 failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the petitioner herein. The enquiry authority and Special Deputy Collector (LA) R&R, Ongole has submitted report on 06.6.2019 stating that out of two articles of charges framed against Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, former Mandal Revenue Officer, Zarugumalli is held partly proved and the other one is not proved. As far as the petitioner is concerned, one charge is proved and the other is partly proved. After disposal of the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner i.e. W.P.No.14678 of 2020 for conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the Special Chief Secretary and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada vide orders dated 01.11.2020 informed that the enquiry report dated 06.6.2019 submitted by the District Collector is not satisfactory as the enquiry officer has conducted enquiry of both charged officers separately and the written statements submitted by charged officers are contradictory. Hence the enquiry officer is directed to conduct enquiry as per norms in the presence of all charged officers while cross-examination in the evidence. 11. Based on the said direction, the Special Deputy Collector (LA) FAC R&R Unit, Ongole has submitted enquiry report on 16.9.2021 confirming the findings of the earlier report. 12. Based on the above report, the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.317 dated 02.5.2022 have issued orders to abate the further disciplinary 8 action against Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, former Tahsildar as he expired on 31.8.2020 before finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, the proceedings were concluded and orders were issued vide G.O.Rt.No.1024 Revenue dated 29.11.2022 imposing a punishment to the petitioner of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Consequently, the period of suspension in respect of the petitioner from 02.5.2007 to 11.10.2007 and 22.7.2008 to 23.9.2008 as a period of spent ‘not on duty’. Accordingly orders were passed under F.R.54-B(7) and subsequent increments have been sanctioned against the petitioner as per Rules. 13. Based on the above facts Sri P.Pathanjali, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri P.Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner, has made his submissions initially on the report of the Forest Settlement Officer dated 27.7.2007 in which it is clearly held that on close comparision of the certificate for Rs.90,000/- with the Xerox copy of certificate for Rs.10,90,000/-, it reveals that both of them are not prepared simultaneously. Had they been prepared simultaneously, magnitude of variation and handwriting pattern would not be of that much. Thus the certificate were not prepared simultaneously leads to suspicion that the office copy and fair copy for Rs.90,000/- were prepared at a time and that office copy and fair copy for Rs.10,90,000/- at a later time. 9 14. Secondly he placed reliance on the orders passed by the Court of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prakasam at Ongole dated 19.4.2018 wherein a crime is registered against the petitioner and other officer for the very same facts. After elaborate trial, the Corut has considered the entire material and evidence and finally disposed of with the following observations. “In the result, the accused/A2 & A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections.109,120-B,193,198, 200, 465, 466, 468, 471, r/w 34 of IPC and as such they are acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. As there is no case property in this case, hence no specific Order.” After disposal of the above criminal case, the enquiry officer has submitted its report on 06.6.2019 with the following findings. “It is noticed that as the charged officer said to be that he has prepared two valuation certificates for Rs.90,000/-in first instance and later, he prepared certificate for Rs.10,90,000/- in 2nd instance on the advice of the MRO. But, it is not relevant when compared to the original register maintained during the year 2006 as authenticated entry made against Sl.No.82 was Issued for Rs.90,000/- only for the above lands. Infact, as could be seen from the application of Gaddamadugu Nageswara Rao who submitted application to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zarugumalli, the applicant sought for a valuation certificate for an amount of Rs.90,000-00 only (Copy enclosed) More over, as could be seen from the property certificate which was issued by the Pachyat Secretary (Charged Officer) previously shows that he issued certificate for an amount of Rs.11,00,000-00 in favour of the applicant. When the court did not accept the authority of the certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary, then he insisted the applicant to file an application before the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zarugumalli for issue of certificate for an amount of Rs.90,000/- which was actual basic value of the saild lands. After filing the application, the was forwarded to the 10 Panchyat Secretary by the then MRO. Then, the Panchatyat Secretary has prepared property valuation certifcate in two copies for Rs.90,000/- leave the space before the digits of value and words in value willfully to manipulate after issue of cerifcate by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zarugumalli. After Issue of certificate, a fair copy was issued to the Panchyat Secretary to serve the same to the applicant. Then, the Charged officer( Panchyat Secretary) manipulated the amount in digits as 10 before 90,000/- and the words as Ten lakhs before ninty thousand on the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. As could be seen both xerox copies of the certifcates, It is clearly evident that property certificate was manipulated after issue of the certificate by the Mandal Revenue Officer. In view of above facts, the explanation submitted by the charged officer is not relled upon. Hence, the charge is held proved.” 15. The above said findings of the enquiry officer is contrary to findings given by the Forest Settlement Officer, Prakasam at Ongole dated 27.7.2007 and also the order of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prakasam at Ongole in C.C.No.54/2009 and 19.4.2018. In both the preliminary enquiry as well as in C.C.No.54/2009, it is clearly held that the petitioner is found not guilty for the offence and accordingly acquitted but the said aspect was not taken into consideration by the enquiry authority in his report dated 06.6.2019. In fact the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (for short CCLA) has categorically taken objections with regard to the enquiry report dated 06.6.2019 vide its letter dated 01.11.2020 and the same was forwarded by the District Collector, Ongole to the Special Deputy Collector, enquiry authority vide letter dated 26.11.2020 wherein it is categorically stated that enquiry report dated 06.6.2019 is not 11 satisfactory as the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry on both charged officers separately and written statement submitted by the charged officers are contradictory. The enquiry officer has to conduct enquiry as per norms in the presence of the charged officer while cross- examining the witnesses and pleased to permit the enquiry authority to re-enquire the matter and forward report. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that despite the said directions of the CCLA and the District Collector, the second report has been prepared and filed by the enquiry authority i.e. Special Deputy Collector (LA) R&R Unit, Ongole on 16.9.2021 clearly shows that without having the original record and based on the Xerox copies, the enquiry officer has given his findings based on the report of the Tahsildar, Zarugumalli dated 28.8.2021. In fact in the findings of the enquiry report dated 16.9.2021, it is stated that the petitioner himself accepted that he was written two certificates for the same land on the same day i.e. one for Rs.90,000/- as per basic value of the Registration Department and another for Rs.10,90,000/- in order to market value as per the directions of Tahsildar, Zarugumalli and the two Xerox copies of the property valuation certificates are available in this file. Accordingly, the charges framed against the petitioner is held proved. The said finding is not only contrary to the charge leveled against the petitioner but also the findings given by the preliminary enquiry officer dated 20.10.2021. In fact, the 12 very defence of the petitioner is that initially he prepared valuation certificates for Rs.90,000/- as per basic value of the Registration Department and as per the directions of Mandal Revenue Officer, Zarugumalli, he prepared one more valuation certificate as per the directions and also by taking the location of the property, for a value of Rs.10,90,000/- and both were handed over to the Mandal Revenue Officer. Hence he is only acted as directed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and he has not made any interpolation to the certificate which was prepared for Rs.90,000/-. Surprisingly, the final enquiry report has given based on the admission made by the petitioner and availability of two documents. Instead of fixing the responsibility on the M.R.O, Zarugumalli, they have given finding stating that it is proved against the petitioner. In fact the preliminary enquiry report dated 27.7.2007 clearly stated that both the documents were not prepared simultaneously and the reason was also given but the said aspect was not considered in the final enquiry report. 16. At any cost, on the basis of the three enquiry reports furnished by the authorities one is on 27.7.2007, second enquiry report on 16.9.2021 each are contradictory. Though after finalizing second enquiry report, the CCLA has taken categorical stand that the enquiry report dated 06.6.2019 is not satisfactory and as the enquiry has been done separately against the charged officers, hence remanded to conduct 13 enquiry against both the charged officers to lead evidence. But surprisingly, the enquiry officer has once again conducted enquiry only based on report of the Mandal Revenue Officer and also based on the Xerox copies/dockets. While conducting enquiry the authorities have failed to take the observations made by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prakasam at Ongole on C.C.No.54/2009. In the above said circumstances, learned counsel has contended that when enquiry has not done as per the directions of the CCLA as well as the procedure contemplated under the Rules and Act, without providing proper opportunity and without considering the observations made by the competent trial Court in judicial proceedings without having any basis, the authority submitted a report stating that the charges held proved against the petitioner partly and with regard to second charge is baseless and that cannot be taken into consideration for passing the impugned orders by the competent authorities. In fact the authorities have not stated any reason for belated disposal of the disciplinary proceedings. In fact the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the delay conclusion of disciplinary proceedings effects rights of the employees and the same cannot be permitted. In the instant case though the proceedings were initiated in the year 2007 but impugned orders were passed in 2022 which is more than 15 years after and on that ground the impugned orders have to be set aside. 14 17. To support the above contentions, learned counsel has relied on the observations of the Apex Court reported in P.V.Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board1. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken cognizance that though departmental proceedings were initiated on 12.12.1987 but the same were not concluded even in 1995. Hence the Court held that there was hardly any explanation worth consideration as to why the delay occurred and accordingly had held the orders of the Tribunal in quashing the charge memo and directed stating to effect promotions. Further held that delay for more than ten years in deciding the disciplinary proceedings could render departmental proceedings initiated in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay. The said principle was followed in another case reported in Prem Nath Bali vs.Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another2 and made the following observations: “Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State or private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time-frame then efforts should be made to conclude within the reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.” 1 (2005) 6 SCC 636 2 (2015) 16 SCC 415 15 18. Hence based on the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the instant case, there is in ordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. In fact, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2007 and concluded in 2022 and that to without having any material to prove the allegations, only based on the assumptions the findings were given which cannot be taken into consideration. 19. Further learned counsel has submitted that in fact once the identical charge and facts were considered by the judicial Court, the findings of the judicial Court is to be taken into consideration while making enquiry in departmental proceedings. In the instant case, for the very same allegations a criminal case is registered against the petitioner along with other officials and the same has been dismissed in that the petitioner was arrayed as accused no.3. After elaborate trial, the Court below has held that the accused no.2 and 3 are found not guilty and they are acquitted. But the same was not taken into consideration while finalizing the enquiry or at the time of passing the impugned orders. The said action of the respondents is contrary to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex court in Ram Lal vs. State of 16 Rajasthan & Others3 wherein the following question was felt for consideration. 10. “We have examined both the questions independently. We are conscious of the fact that a writ court's power to review the order of the disciplinary authority is very limited. The scope of enquiry is only to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate. (See SBI v. A.G.D. Reddy³.) As part of that exercise, the courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider whether the findings of the disciplinary authority have ignored material evidence and if it so finds, the courts are not powerless to interfere. (See United Bank of India v. Biswanath Bhattacharjee.) 12. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the Court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. (See G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, State Bank of Hyderabad v. P. Kata Rao and S. Samuthirams.) 23. The disciplinary authority has merely reiterated the reasoning in the enquiry report. Equally so are the findings of the appellate authority. It is well settled that if the findings of the disciplinary authorities are arrived at after ignoring the relevant material the court in judicial review can interfere. It is only to satisfy ourselves to this extent, that we have scrutinised the material to see as to what was reflected in the record. We are satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated and deserve to be quashed. 28. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used. 29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the 3 (2024) 1 SCC 175 17 appellant was not just, "not proved" in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved" (see Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P.8). 20. As per the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, once the acquittal in criminal proceedings after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and when it clearly indicate the charge against the accused was not proved, the same has to be taken into consideration by the departmental proceedings also. But surprisingly, while concluding the disciplinary proceedings, both the enquiry reports dated 06.6.2019 and 16.9.2021 submitted without proper enquiry and without considering the preliminary report submitted by the Forest Settlement Officer dated 27.7.2007 and also the findings of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prakasam at Ongole in C.C.No.54/2009 dated 19.4.2018. Infact a perusal of both the reports discloses that the enquiry officer has not made any effort to prove the disputed document. Only based on the Xerox copies and also based on the report submitted by the then Mandal Revenue Officer dated 28.8.2021 held partly proved, which cannot be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. Even at the time of passing the final orders the authority has not taken into consideration the observations made by 18 the Judicial Magistrate and also reply made by the petitioner, in perspective manner. For the above reasons and for delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings, the impugned orders has to go and requested to set aside the impugned orders directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar. 21. Reply to the said submissions, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that initially when there is a complaint received from the Tahsildar, Zarugumalli based on the report of Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector, charges were framed against the petitioner. Simultaneously a criminal complaint is also lodged and the same is numbered as C.C.No.54/2009. When the criminal case is pending, departmental proceedings were deferred and after concluding the criminal proceedings enquiry officer was appointed in the year 2019 and after submitting the enquiry report by the enquiry officer on 06.6.2019, the same was forwarded to the Special Chief Secretary and the Special Chief Secretary, CCLA has remanded the matter once again for conducting fresh enquiry against both the delinquent persons. Accordingly, fresh enquiry has been conducted. But fact remains that by that time one of the charged officer i.e. Mandal Revenue Officer, Zarugumalli has passed away. Hence the enquiry officer conducted fresh enquiry after getting report from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zarugumalli and also after verifying the record 19 has submitted report. He has conducted the enquiry and submitted his report. Even after submitting the enquiry report, the authorities have followed the procedure contemplated under the rules by furnishing the enquiry report along with notice and after getting the explanation, the disciplinary authority has passed orders. In the instant case as the allegations against the petitioner is proved against the charge no.1 and partly proved against charge no.2, hence the competent authority has imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect in accordance with Rules. Hence there is no violation of Rule or procedure. Hence requested to dismiss the Writ Petition. 22. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and on perusal of the record, no doubt initially the preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Forest Settlement officer and submitted its report on 27.7.2007. On perusal of the said report, it clearly discloses that action was initiated against the petitioner only on the allegation that he manipulated valuation certificate from Rs.90,000/- to Rs.10,90,000/- by interpolating number 10 before Rs.90,000/-. The enquiry officer after comparing two certificates categorically held that it is proved and there is no interpolation and it is held that both are prepared separately. 23. In fact the very defence of the petitioner is that from the beginning in this case is that he prepared two certificates based on the directions of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zarugumalli. Initially based on the 20 representation /request made by one G.Nageswara Rao. He prepared the valuation certificate based on the market value of Registration Department for Rs.90,000/-. But after specific directions of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zarugumalli, based on the location, he prepared a second valuation certificate and handed over both the documents to the Mandal Revenue Officer. In fact the Mandal Revenue Officer who is the competent authority and his signature is available in both the documents as well as seal also. Hence it is to be construed that the petitioner has nothing to do with this and he has prepared the certificates only based on the directions of the then Mandal Revenue Officer. If such is the defence, the burden lies on the enquiry officer to prove whether there are two separate certificates existing or as alleged by the authorities only one certificate is available by interpolating the same. But surprisingly on verifying the findings in the enquiry report dated 16.9.2021, the findings are given based on the statement made by the petitioner and only based on that the enquiry officer held that the charges are proved and not made any efforts to prove the said allegations by using the technology. Apparently in the above case when there are contradictory defence by both the charged officers, trial has to be conducted and evidence has to be lead before both the charged officers. But in the instant case that has not been done and there is no whisper with regard to delay of more than 15 years. Apart 21 from all these, as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Judgment in Ram lal vs. State of Rajsthan and others (cited supra) wherein it is held, the effect of acquittal in criminal proceedings was also taken care if the disciplinary authority has merely reiterating the reasoning in the enquiry report and findings of the disciplinary authority arrived at, after analyzing the relevant material, the Court in the judicial review can be interfered. Further it is held that the acquittal in criminal proceedings was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and the prosecution has failed to prove the charge has to be construed as disproved. In the said circumstances by taking the observations of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prakasam at Ongole in C.C.No.54/2009 dated 19.4.2018 and also on perusal of the material, this Court is of the opinion that the disciplinary proceedings and orders passed there on cannot be allowed to be stand. The charges were not only similar and identical evidence and witnesses and the circumstances are one and the same. In the said circumstances while concluding the matter, the disciplinary authorities are also bound to take the observations made by the judicial orders taken place in the similar set of criminal proceedings. 24. Considering the material and also the observations of the Hon’ble Apex court, this Court is of the opinion that the enquiring authority has not conducted enquiry in a proper manner and when there are 22 contradictory defence taken by the charged officers, the enquiry has to be conducted and evidence has to be lead for both the charges. But in the instant case it was not happened and the documents were also not sent to any technical persons for proving the allegations. On perusal of the enquiry report it clearly discloses that only based on the report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the enquiry officer has given findings and there is no appreciation of the evidence or findings by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority. 25. In view of the same, the impugned orders vide G.O.Rt.No.1024 dated 29.11.2022 are set aside on the ground of delay as well as on the ground of not considering the relevant findings of the judicial pronouncements. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Dt: 09.7.2026 RD 23 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO.2925 OF 2023 Dated 09.7.2026 RD