APHC010426462023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 21888 OF 2023 Between: 1. Dr J CHANDRA BABU, S/O J. Chenchu Krishnaiah (Late), Aged 48 years, Occ Superintendent, Worked at Directorate of Evaluation,(Previously) Working at U.G.C. Section (Presently) Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur, Anantapur District ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, rep by its Principal Secretary to Government Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Rep.by.its Registrar, Anantapur Anantapur District ...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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings impugned proceedings No.SKU/Estt/E1/2023 of 2nd respondent, whereby awarded major punishment of cutting two increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, against the Principals of Natural Justice, disproportionate and against the AP. CC AND A (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules 1991 and consequently direct the respondents to pay all consequential benefits including notional promotion on par with my juniors and by treating the suspension period as on duty and to pass 2 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 impugned proceedings No.SKU/Estt/E1/2023 of 2nd respondent and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to grant leave to the 2nd respondent in W.P. No. 21888 of 2023 to file the counter affidavit in the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR SERVICES III Counsel for the Respondents:M KARIBASAIAH(SC FOR SRI KRISHNA DEVARAYA UNIVERSITY) The Court made the following order: 3 O R D E R 1) The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings impugned proceedings No.SKU/Estt/E1/2023 of 2nd respondent, whereby awarded major punishment of cutting two increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, disproportionate and against the APCC&A (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and consequently direct the respondents to pay all consequential benefits including notional promotion on par with my juniors and by treating the suspension period as on duty and to pass……” 2) The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner is working as the Superintendent of Godown-III. The allegation leveled against the Petitioner is that, 71 answer scripts pertaining to the examinations conducted on 14.03.2022 for “III” and “V” Semester in the subjects of Statistics, Electronics, Botany and Advanced Telugu were found missing. Basing on the said allegation, a Charge Memo was issued against the Petitioner. The solitary charge framed against the Petitioner reads as under: “The Director of Evaluation has reported the registrar S.K. University that a bundle containing the answer scripts of examination held in master minds Degree College, Anantapuram (centre code no.58) 14.03.2022 and that examination bundle was deposited in Government Degree 4 college (Autonomous) on the same day Sri.B.Muthyalappa Junior Assistant working in Director of Examination has collected the bundle on 15.03.2023 and on the same day the bundles were kept in godown, under the control of superintendent i.e. Dr. J. Chandra Babu in respect of V semester. All the answer scripts of UG V semester examination were subjected to the usual process of coding, evaluation, decoding etc, and the results announced in June 2022. After announcement of results, some of the students who appeared for V semester Examination, complained that only one subject marks are awarded in their marks list instead of two subjects and also corresponding marks. On verification of records, it was found that bundle containing a total of 71 answer scripts (excluding four absentees) of Statistics, Electronics, Botany and Advanced Telugu subjects were missing". 3) Prior to the issuance of the afore-said Charge Memo, a Show Cause Notice, dated 16.06.2022, was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation with regard to the alleged missing of the afore-said 71 answer scripts. In response thereto, the Petitioner, on 17.06.2022, submitted a detailed explanation, specifically stating that the said answer scripts were received from the concerned college by the Junior Assistant, namely, Mr. B. Muthyalappa, and were thereafter kept in the godown. However, notwithstanding the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, he was placed under suspension on 22.06.2022, and subsequently, a Charge Memo, dated 17.08.2022, was issued against him, containing the afore-said solitary charge. 5 4) The Petitioner submitted his reply to the Charge Memo on 22.08.2022. Thereafter, Respondents appointed an Enquiry Officer on 06.10.2022, who conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 25.10.2022. Based on the findings recorded in the Enquiry Report, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation thereto. In response, Petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 03.11.2022, specifically disputing the findings recorded therein. Thereafter, without properly appreciating the explanation submitted by the Petitioner, Respondents passed the impugned Order, dated 01.05.2023, imposing the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, besides directing recovery of an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards the expenditure allegedly incurred for conducting the re-examination of the 71 students. 5) Upon a perusal of the proceedings dated 01.05.2023, whereby the penalty was imposed upon the Petitioner, it is evident that the penalty imposed amounts to a major penalty within the meaning of Rule 9. 6) The principal contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the charge framed against the Petitioner is vague and does not specifically indicate the provision(s) under which the alleged misconduct stated to have been committed or the penalty sought to be imposed. Further, it is contended that, since the penalty imposed upon 6 the Petitioner is a major penalty, the Respondents were required to follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.C.A. Rules governing the imposition of major penalties. 7) Learned Counsel further contends that non-appointment of a Presenting Officer violates Rule 20(5)(c) of the A.P.C.C.A. Rules. He submits that appointment of a Presenting Officer is intended to ensure that the case of the Department is presented before the Enquiry Officer, while the Enquiry Officer is required to discharge his functions impartially and objectively. The Enquiry Officer cannot assume the role of a Prosecutor or Presenting Officer and, at the same time, act as the adjudicating authority in the disciplinary enquiry. Such a course would amount to combining the roles of the prosecutor and the adjudicator and would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair procedure. 8) Learned Counsel further contends that the Charge Memo, dated 17.08.2022, issued is not in conformity with the procedure contemplated under Rule 20(7) of the A.P.C.C.A. Rules. In particular, the Charge Memo did not contain or furnish the statement of imputations/defence, the list of witnesses proposed to be examined, and the list of documents relied upon by the Department in support of the charge, thereby depriving the Petitioner of a reasonable and effective opportunity to defend himself in the departmental enquiry. 7 9) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Ram Lakhan Sharma1 and laid emphasis on paragraph Nos. 36 & 37, which reads as under: “36. Thus, the question as to whether Inquiry Officer who is supposed to act independently in an inquiry has acted as prosecutor or not is a question of fact which has to be decided on the facts and proceedings of particular case. In the present case we have noticed that the High Court had summoned the entire inquiry proceedings and after perusing the proceedings the High Court came to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer himself led the examination in chief of the prosecution witness by putting questions. The High Court further held that the Inquiry Officer acted himself as prosecutor and Judge in the said disciplinary enquiry. The above conclusion of the High Court has already been noticed from paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment of the High court giving rise to Civil Appeal No.2608 of 2012. 37. The High Court having come to the conclusion that Inquiry Officer has acted as prosecutor also, the capacity of independent adjudicator was lost which adversely affecting his independent role of adjudicator. In the circumstances, the principle of bias shall come into play and the High Court was right in setting aside the dismissal orders by giving liberty to the appellants to proceed with inquiry afresh. We make it clear that our observations as made above are in the facts of the present cases”. 1 2018 SCC OnLine SC 646 8 10) Placing reliance on the above, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Enquiry Officer is supposed to act independently but the Enquiry Officer has acted as Prosecutor and in view of non-appointment of an independent adjudicator had adversely affected its independent role. In those circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court set-aside the impugned action and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 11) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and Others Vs. P.Balasubrahmanayam2 specifically citing observations from paragraph Nos. 17, 18 & 22, which are extracted hereunder: “17. We have given thought to the aforesaid limited controversy and examined the records. We are of the view that the reliance on the Circular really does not help the case of the respondent inter alia for the reason that once it is found that the case does not have a vigilance angle, albeit after conclusion of inquiry, no prejudice can be said to have caused to the respondent. If we may say so, the fairness of the departmental proceedings is obvious on the fact that all charges relating to bribery had been held in favour of the respondent and those charges have been rejected. The only charges found proved are of procedural irregularities, over which there are concurrent findings of the relevant authorities based on certain admissions made by the respondent himself. The proceedings have also got prolonged because at every stage the respondent sought to 2 2021 SCC OnLine SC 169 9 challenge them in judicial forums, and that too not very successfully. 18. We find it difficult to disturb the findings of the disciplinary authority insofar as the procedural lapses are concerned. It really shows that there was negligence on the part of the respondent in performing his duties. That being so, we do not feel it was appropriate for the High Court to have set aside the result of the proceedings against the respondent by giving him a clean chit on the issue as a consequence of the Circular not being followed. It would be right to say that suppose these charges of bribery had not been levelled and only procedural lapses were examined, this plea would not have been open to the respondent. 22. The question is whether the Tribunal proceeded correctly in passing the final direction to impose appropriate minor penalty. The Tribunal itself did not impose the punishment but left it to the authority concerned (for appropriate course of action). It was of the view that considering the findings of procedural lapses against the respondent, the appropriate punishment could only be a minor penalty and not a major penalty. With this again, we are in agreement with the course of action adopted. The nature of charges found against the respondent can hardly be one to call for a major penalty, keeping in mind that there was no bribery charge. Anyone can make mistakes. The consequences of mistakes should not be unduly harsh. We are, thus, of the view that the direction of the Tribunal is what is liable to be sustained.” 12) Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the allegation of bribery levelled against the delinquent employee in the said case was not proved, the Hon’ble Apex Court, upon consideration of the findings 10 recorded by the Enquiry Officer, came to the conclusion that the proved procedural irregularities, at best, warranted imposition of a minor penalty. Accordingly, while setting aside the major penalty imposed upon the delinquent employee, the Hon’ble Apex Court remitted the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration and for imposition of an appropriate minor penalty in accordance with law. 13) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, placing reliance upon the aforesaid findings, would submit that, at the highest, the conduct attributable to the Petitioner can only be characterized as a lapse or lack of supervision and not as any deliberate or serious misconduct warranting imposition of a major penalty. It is pointed out that, as recorded by the Enquiry Committee in its report that, “very casually, with over confidence, the concerned office completed the coding work. Neither the Superintendent nor the other Officers were in doubt that some bundles are missing and completed the process mechanically without anticipating ifs and buts or untoward incidents”. According to the learned Counsel, the aforesaid finding constitutes the substance of the Enquiry Committee's conclusion and, at best, establishes an element of slackness on the part of the Petitioner. 14) Learned Counsel would further submit that the overall observations of the Enquiry Committee, as reflected in the tabulated findings forming part of the report, demonstrate that the charge 11 levelled against the Petitioner not found to be conclusively proved but only partially proved. In such circumstances, contended that the alleged misconduct, even if accepted, would warrant only the imposition of a minor penalty. It is, therefore, submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner ought to have been dealt with under Rule 22 of the A.P.C.C.A. Rules, which prescribes the procedure for imposition of minor penalties, particularly when the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of the said Rules, for imposing a major penalty, was not duly followed by the Respondents. 15) Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, referring to the averments made in the counter-affidavit, would submit that the Executive Council is the competent authority under the relevant University Statutes to take a decision in the matter. It is contended that, upon considering the matter in its entirety, the Executive Council resolved to impose upon both the Petitioner and Sri B. Muthyalappa the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, besides directing recovery of an amount of Rs.4,000/- each towards the extraordinary expenditure incurred for conducting the re- examination of the 71 students. 16) The specific contention of the Petitioner is that the procedure prescribed under the A.P.C.C.A. Rules not followed in the course of the disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that no Presenting Officer 12 was appointed and that the documents and list of witnesses contemplated under Annexure-II and III, along with Annexure-I containing the Articles-of-Charge, were not furnished to the Petitioner. Despite the alleged non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, the Respondents, relying upon the findings and recommendations of the Enquiry Committee, proceeded to impose upon the Petitioner the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect, besides directing recovery of an amount of Rs.4,000/-. Such penalty, having a continuing effect upon the service and consequential implications upon the retiral/pensionary benefits of the Petitioner, constitutes a major penalty within the meaning of Rule 9 of the A.P.C.C.A. Rules and, therefore, could not have been imposed without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Rules. 17) A further perusal of the Enquiry Report, however, indicates that the lapse attributed to the Petitioner essentially relates to alleged negligence/slackness in the discharge of his duties. The findings recorded in the Enquiry Report do not disclose any deliberate misconduct or willful act on the part of the Petitioner. Further, the manner in which the enquiry conducted, particularly in the absence of a Presenting Officer, raises a serious issue as to whether the enquiry conducted in accordance with the principles of fairness and natural justice. In such circumstances, when the mandatory procedure 13 prescribed under the A.P.C.C.A. Rules have not been adhered to and the findings themselves indicate, at best, an element of negligence/slackness, the imposition of a major penalty upon the Petitioner cannot be sustained in law. 18) For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner vide proceedings, dated 01.05.2023, being a major penalty, could not have been imposed without adhering to the procedure prescribed under Rule 20 of the A.P.C.C.A. Rules. The material on record, at the highest, discloses negligence or a minor lapse on the part of the Petitioner in the discharge of his duties, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would not warrant imposition of a major penalty. The punishment imposed is, therefore, disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the lapse attributed to the Petitioner and cannot sustain in law. 19) Consequently, the proceedings dated 01.05.2023 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration of the case afresh, treating the alleged misconduct as warranting, if at all, a minor penalty under the applicable provisions of the A.P. State Subordinate Service Rules. The Disciplinary Authority shall upon such reconsideration pass appropriate order(s) in accordance with law, after affording the Petitioner an opportunity of 14 being heard, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20) Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent. 21) No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 08.09.2026 SM 15 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION No. 21888 of 2023 Dated: 08.09.2026 SM