AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings of CCLA’S REF.No.VSII(2)/ 192/2017 dt.24.03.2021 issued by the 1st respondent, as illegal and null and void and consequently to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the next higher category of Revenue Divisional Officer with all consequential benefits.
Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was originally appointed as Deputy Tahsildar with effect from 28.09.2007 after due process of selection. Thereafter, as per his seniority, he was promoted as Tahsildar during the year 2011 and he worked as Tahsildar of Ramagundam Mandal from 07.07.2014 to 28. 07.2017. On 05.10.2017, the 1st respondent issued a charge memo framing 13 articles of charge against the petitioner and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 01.11.2017 denying each and every allegation as false and baseless. Thereafter, the Special Deputy Collector (LA) and District Revenue Officer (I/c), Peddapally was appointed as an enquiry officer vide memo dt.18.12.2018 to conduct enquiry against the petitioner as well as Sri Arun Kumar, Senior Assistant, Ramagundam Mandal. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 18.05.2019 holding the charges against the petitioner as not proved. The disciplinary authority, i.e., the 2nd respondent, however, ordered for further enquiry on 16.03.2020 regarding some of the charges and again the enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report dt.10.06.2020 stating that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. However, the 2nd respondent, vide his letter dt.10.12.2020, disagreed with the enquiry report and directed the District Collector, Peddapally to communicate the disagreement factors to the petitioner along with the enquiry report. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.01.2021 on the disagreement factors mentioned in the proceedings dt.10.12.2020. Thereafter, on 24.03.2021, the 1st respondent issued proceedings imposing penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner. Since the said order of major punishment is contrary to the consecutive enquiry reports dt.18.05.2019 as well as 10.06.2020, the present Writ Petition is filed. Further, it is stated that the petitioner was due for promotion to the higher post of Revenue Divisional Officer as his name was already included in the panel of promotions but due to the punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments, the petitioner’s case for promotion has not been considered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ch.Jagannath Rao, while reiterating the above submissions, stated that under Rule 21(3) of the Telangana State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘the CCA Rules’), the enquiry ought to have been completed within a period of six months, whereas the respondents have taken two years of time and further, under Rule 21(3), the respondents have to give reasons as to why they disagree with the enquiry report, but there are no findings to overcome such enquiry report. He further submitted that under Rule 21(5), before issuing the proceedings, the respondents ought to have referred the record of enquiry to the Commissioner and for failure to do so, the punishment is not valid. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohd Abdul Mohaimin Vs. The Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another W.P.(TR) No.187 of 2017 dt.06.07.2016. Thus, he seeks setting aside of the punishment and also consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion to the next higher post, i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer.
Learned Government Pleader for Services-III representing the respondents submitted that the enquiry officers did not cover all the issues which have been referred to for a decision and therefore, the disciplinary authority has disagreed with the same and had communicated the disagreement factors under Rule 21 of the CCA Rules. He submitted that in the second instance, the enquiry officer has submitted the same enquiry report with mere changes, but has not clarified the disagreement factors and therefore, the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments. It is further submitted that both the enquiries were conducted by the same officer and hence, there could be possibility of prejudice. He therefore sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that there were as many as 11 charges against the petitioner and the enquiry officer after examining the relevant parties as well as the evidence, has discussed and held each of the charges as not proved. The disciplinary authority, however, by proceedings dt.16.03.2020 has observed that the enquiry officer has not verified the connected records and has accepted whatever has been submitted by the delinquent officer and therefore remitted the matter back to the enquiry officer under the provisions of Rule 21 of the CCA Rules for further enquiry and report. The enquiry officer vide his report dt.10.06.2020 submitted his report again and has given detailed findings as to the documents verified by him and how he finds that the charges are not proved against the petitioner. But the CCLA has again said that the enquiry officer has not verified the record and has accepted the contentions of the petitioner. To these disagreement factors, again the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 22.01.2021 and after considering the same, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that in respect of first four charges pertaining to irregular mutations, the fact of irregular mutations having been done is not denied either by the charged officer or in the findings of the enquiry officer, but it was sought to be explained that the same were made by the Mee Seva operator without the knowledge of the charged officer and on noticing the same, the necessary rectification was made by the charged officer. Thus, the charge in so far as it pertains to carrying out of the irregular mutations in the first instance and also negligence of the charged officer in parting with the digital key, which is personal to him, which facilitated the irregular mutations, are clearly established. Thereafter, in respect of charges 6, 9 and 10 also, the disciplinary authority has held that in respect of certain recommendations for regularisation of Government vacant lands as per G.O.Ms.No.59, it was found by the enquiry authority that there were in fact errors in the proposal sent to the RDO and further in the explanation of the charged officer, it was stated that such report was in fact sent, and in respect of charge No.9 pertaining to mutations done by the charged officer in the newly formed Mandals outside his jurisdiction, the explanation of the charged officer is that the online mutations were in fact carried out by him in the Pahanis after formation of the new Mandals, though the proposals are stated to have originated before the formation of new Mandals and therefore, the charge of carrying out mutations outside his jurisdiction is established. In respect of charge 10 pertaining to submission of ex gratia proposals to 20 individuals without proper verification, the disciplinary authority held that the finding of the enquiry officer is that the charged officer submitted the same in good faith though they were erroneous and the explanation of the charged officer to the disagreement factors is that the survey was done by his subordinate staff and he submitted the same to the LAO for necessary action. Thus, the responsibility of the charged officer for sending incorrect proposals for ex gratia is admitted. In view thereof, he imposed penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. However, it is seen that before issuing the penalty order, the respondents have not issued notice to the petitioner to explain as to the reasonableness of the punishment proposed to be issued.
Similar situation has come up before this Court in the case of Mohd Abdul Mohaimin Vs. The Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another (W.P.(TR) No.187 of 2017 dt.06.07.2016 supra), wherein, this Court after going through the provisions of Rule 21(2) and (3) of the CCA Rules, held that the disciplinary authority is required to record disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer against the delinquent employee in order to let him know the reasons for not agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer and to respond to the show-cause notice. It was further held that when the disciplinary authority did not find favour with the enquiry report and the subsequent explanation of the petitioner on the disagreement factors, he ought to have issued a notice proposing punishment and thereafter imposing punishment. In the case of Mohd Abdul Mohaimin Vs. The Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another (W.P.(TR) No.187 of 2017 dt.06.07.2016 supra) also, though the disciplinary authority had initially issued disagreement note and after considering the petitioner’s contentions, has not given any further show-cause notice to the petitioner before imposing the major punishment of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, this Court held it to be in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
In view thereof, the punishment order dt.24.03.2021 is set aside and the respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioner with regard to the proposed punishment and after the petitioner submits his explanation, the respondent No.1 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. If the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Revenue Divisional Officer, then the respondents shall consider and grant notional promotion to him on par with the promotion given to his juniors. The pendency of the disciplinary proceedings shall not in any way impede the promotional channel of the petitioner. The respondents are accordingly directed.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.