Susheela Devi (Smt.) vs State of A.P. and another

The petitioner while serving as Assistant Manager in the establishment of 2nd respondent-Society for Training and Employment Promotion in the cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad (for short "Setwin") was issued charge-memos on 16-1-1995, 10-2-1995, 13-2-1995 and 2-3-1995 alleging certain misconduct against her. The Management of Setwin not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, appointed one Mr. M.Sadu Sunder, General Manager (PC) as the Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority after holding a Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority. It seems from the 4 counter affidavits filed by the 2nd respondent that the Disciplinary Authority did not act upon the enquiry report and on the other hand was contemplating de novo enquiry against the petitioner. On an earlier occasion, the 2nd respondent - Management had issued an Office Order dated 13-3-1996 placing the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. The said suspension order was assailed in W.P.No.7895 of 1996 in this Court. This Court disposed of that Writ Petition by its order dated 23-6-1997 directing the Management of Setwin that if there is any prima facie material and evidence against the petitioner, charge-sheet shall be framed in that regard and served on the petitioner on or before 1-8-1997. It was also further directed that if such charge-sheet was not framed and served on the petitioner within the stipulated time, the impugned suspension order shall stand vacated automatically and the petitioner shall be permitted to resume the office of Assistant Manager. After this event, the Management of Setwin issued afresh Charge-sheet dated 26-7-1997, the validity of which is impugned in this writ petition. Simultaneously, an office order was issued on the same day continuing the suspension of the petitioner in pursuance of the earlier suspension order dated 13-3-1996 and the validity of this suspension order is also assailed in the present writ petition.

Sri Vitas V.Afzalpurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset would contend that the 2nd charge-sheet issued by the Management of the Setwin dated 26-7-1997 is on the face of it is invalid and unsustainable. Elaborating this submission, the learned Counsel would contend that the impugned charge-sheet is nothing but replica of the earlier charges issued vide charge-memos dated 16-1-1995, 10-2-1995, 13-2-1995 and 2-3-1995; on the earlier charges framed against the petitioner, Inquiry Officer was appointed, inquiry was conducted between 16-1-1995 and 11-8-1995; Inquiry Officer submitted the report to the Disciplinary Authority and at this juncture the impugned charge-sheet came to be issued for no reasons. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel would place reliance on certain decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court.

The learned Standing Counsel for Setwin would contend that the impugned charge-sheet came to be issued when the present Managing Director received a copy of Memo No. 165/SES/A1/96-11, dated 4-9-1997 from the Government of Andhra Pradesh wherein at paras 20 to 22, he found that certain allegations were made against Sri M.Sadu Sunder relating to non-maintenance of registers and his failure to supervise properly resulting in the shortfall of production and that was the reason for the Managing Director to take a decision to hold de novo enquiry resulting in the issuance of the impugned charge-sheet. This factual statement made by the learned Standing Counsel for Setwin is in variance with the pleadings of the Setwin as could be seen from four counter affidavits filed in this case. I do not find any necessity to deal with the contradictions in the pleadings. Even assuming that what the learned Counsel for Setwin has stated is correct, even then, I do not find any justification for the Management of the Setwin to issue impugned charge-sheet, for the reasons to follow. The learned Government Pleader for Tourism would support the issuance of the impugned charge-sheet.

The Supreme Court in K.R. Deb Vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, , while considering Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1957 held that Rule 15 does not contemplate successive inquiries, and if there is some defect in the inquiry already conducted by the Inquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority can direct the Inquiry Officer to conduct further inquiries in respect of that matter, but it cannot direct a fresh inquiry to be conducted by some other officer.

This Court in B. Balakishan Reddy Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, , after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.R.Deb ''s case (supra) and also the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Assam and Another Vs. J.N. Roy Biswas, held that the action of the Disciplinary Authority in setting aside the inquiry report without assigning any reason and appointing another Inquiry Officer is totally illegal and unsustainable. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in R. Rama Rao v. A.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited and another 1997 (5) ALD 325.

I have carefully gone through the impugned charge-sheet dated 26-7-1997. There is absolutely no reference to the earlier Charge-Memo dated 16-1-1995,10-2-1995,13-2-1995 and 2-3-1995. There is also no reference to the enquiry earlier conducted against the petitioner by appointing Mr.Sadu Sunder as Inquiry Officer. There is also no reference to the receipt of the Inquiry Report. No reasons are disclosed in the impugned charge-sheet as to why and under what circumstance, the present Managing Director thought it fit and necessary to direct de novo inquiry. It is needless to state that if the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are not acceptable to the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority has all the powers to differ with the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority and record his independent findings on the charges. Further, if any further inquiry is necessary in respect of any particular charge or few charges and inquiry was not held properly by the Inquiry Officer, as held by the Supreme Court, the disciplinary authority has the power to direct inquiry in respect of such charge or charges and direct the Inquiry Officer to submit findings on such charge or charges. The only ground stated before the Court at the time of hearing by the learned Standing Counsel for Setwin is that after receipt of the Government Memo dated 4-9-1997 referred to above, the present Managing Director thought it necessary to hold de nova inquiry by appointing someone else as the Enquiry Officer. If this is the reason which weighed with the present Managing Director of Setwin to hold de novo enquiry. I should say that the reasoning is perverse. I have perused the Government Memo dated 4-9-1997. In para (21), it is stated that during verification of the production centres records of Gauze and Bandage centres by the Accounts Officer of Industries (SES) Department, it was noticed that there was a short fall of 7000 Mtrs of Gauze cloth and that the stock registers were not maintained properly and verified by M.Sadu Sunder resulting in shortfall of production. The Court docs not want to say anything about this allegation. Even assuming that ultimately this allegation is going to be proved in a departmental proceeding against M.Sadu Sunder, that fact itself will not disqualify the said Officer to be Inquiring Authority in a disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner. It is not the case of the Management of the Setwin that M.Sadu Sunder, being a bad character, did anything unlawfully and deliberately to help the petitioner delinquent to go scot-free from the charges for any collateral or extraneous consideration.

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and two decisions of the learned single Judges of this Court with which I respectfully agree, the writ petition is entitled to be allowed only for those reasons. Added to that reason, there is one more reason to allow the writ petition. If there are any weighty or substantially good grounds not to accept the Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiring Authority and to hold de novo inquiry, there should have been an office order issued by the Disciplinary Authority cancelling the earlier inquiry and for not accepting the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiring Authority. Nothing is said nor produced before Court to satisfy that the present Managing Director has issued any Office Order cancelling the earlier inquiry and refusing to accept the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiring Authority.

Adverting to the challenge to the suspension order, suffice it to state that if the impugned charge-sheet is liable to be quashed, the impugned charge-sheet is also liable to be quashed.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned charge-sheet as well as the suspension order both dated 26-7-1997 are quashed.

However, it is made clear that the respondent - Disciplinary authority is at liberty to take further steps in pursuance of the earlier charge memos dated 16-1-1995, 10-2-1995, 13-2-1995 and 2-3-1995 and pass appropriate final order. No costs.