WA/233/2012 of Managing Director, Vs I.N.Murthy,(died) on 29 December 2011

1) Shri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (Gen.,) working in theOffice of the Joint Manager (Operations) F.C.I., Visakhapatnamhas failed to look after his family and stopped financial support tothe family for the last 7 years and thus failed to discharge hisresponsibilities towards his spouse and family.

That the said Sri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (G) istherefore charged with the contravention of Regulation 32(A), Sub-Regulation 23 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971.

2) Sri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (General) working in theoffice of the Joint Manager (Opns) FCI , Visakhapatnam hasdeserted his wife and children and is living with a lady of 30 yearsage.

That the said Sri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (Genl.,)is therefore charged with the contravention of Regulation 32(A)Sub-Regulation 24 of PCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971.

3) Sri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (Genl.) working in the Officeof the Joint Manager (Opns.) FCI, Visakhapatnam has furnishedwrong date of birth other than that recorded in his school recordsat the time of appointment as Junior Clerk in Office of the DeputyDirector (Food), FCI, Madras Harbour, Madras. The said SriI.N.Murthy is therefore charged for contravention of Regulation 32(A) Sub-Regulation 4 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971.

4) Sri I.N.Murthy, Assistant Manager (Genl.,) working in theOffice of the Joint Manager (Opns.,) FCI, Visakhapatnam haspreferred a false TA Bill for Rs.3,196/- for his journey to and fro Madras on 7.8.1996 in connection with visit to Apollo Hospital,Madras for routine medical ckeck-up.

He is, therefore, charged for contravention of Regulation32 Sub-Regulation 1 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971”.

Accordingly, the 3rdappellant was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquireabout the said charges.The 3rdappellant conducted an enquiry andultimately came to the conclusion that the charges under Articles 1, 2 and 4have been proved and charge under Article 3 is not proved against the 1strespondent and he sent the enquiry reports to the 2ndappellant and the 1strespondent.The 1strespondent after receiving the same, submitted awritten representation, dated 17-05-2000, to the 2ndappellant.Then the 2ndappellant under Section 56 of F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971 read withRegulation 54 of the F.C.I. (Staff) Regulations, 1971, issued impugnedproceedings dated 26-06-2000 removing the 1strespondent from service.Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal before the 1stappellant.The1stappellant, by the impugned orders, dated 12-07-2001, dismissed theappeal.Aggrieved by the same, the 1strespondent preferred the presentwrit petition contending that the charge under Article 3 was held to be notproved by the Enquiry Officer.So far as charges under Articles 1 and 2 areconcerned, the said charges were framed based on the complaint given bythe wife of the 1strespondent.However, subsequently, she herself hadwithdrawn the said complaint, therefore, the authorities are not justified inpassing the removal order.

During pendency of the writ petition, the 1strespondent died and hislegal representations were brought on record vide orders dated 01-05-2009in W.P.M.P.No.10043 of 2009.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learnedSingle Judge allowed the writ petition setting aside the impugned orderdated 12-07-2001 issued by the 1stappellant and directed the appellants topass appropriate orders and consequently, the deceased 1strespondent

Conclusion

shall be deemed to have been reinstated into service with continuity ofservice with full back wages and all attendant benefits and accordingly,retiremental benefits, pension, etc., shall be paid to the legal representativesof the 1strespondent i.e. respondents 2 to 8 herein, within a period of fourmonths from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Challenging the same,the present writ appeal is filed by the appellants-authorities.

3. Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellantsas well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the enquiryofficer’s report, the proceedings of the disciplinary authority and theimpugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the appellants,contended that the charge with regard to the Article No.4 is very serious andadmittedly, 1strespondent has himself confessed that he has claimed falseT.A bills, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have set aside theorder passed by the disciplinary authority.

5. As seen from the impugned order, it is clear that the learnedSingle Judge, while allowing the writ petition observed that so far as chargesI and II are concerned, the allegations against the 1strespondent are that hehad failed to look after his family and stopped financially supporting themand further he has deserved his legally wedded wife and living with someother lady.Admittedly, those charges were framed based on the complaintgiven by the wife of the 1strespondent, but however, thereafter, the saidcomplaint was withdrawn by her vide application dated 05-05-2000requesting the appellants to close the proceedings initiated against herhusband.Further, she filed O.P.No.277 of 1996 for restitution of conjugalrights and O.S.No.47 of 1997 for claiming maintenance against the 1strespondent.The learned Judge, Family Court, Visakhapatnam, by hiscommon order, dated 05-02-1999, while dismissing the said O.P. partlyallowed the suit, and thereafter, she had joined her husband and was livingwith him under one roof and all the disputes between them were solved.Therefore, the authorities ought to have taken the same into consideration and held that the charges under Articles 1 and 2 are not proved, or even ifthey are proved, on withdrawal of the complaint by his wife, the said chargeswould have been compounded.So far as Article No.4 is concerned, theallegations made against the 1strespondent are that the delinquent-preferred a false T.A. Bill of Rs.3,000/ in the year 1996 for the travel to andfrom Madras on 07-08-1996 and 09-08-1996 in order to visit Apollo Hospital for medical check up.Admittedly, the 1strespondent was suffering from heart problem and itappears that enquiry was initiated in 1996 itself, but according to the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, the same was closed vide reference No.V & S 7(27)/96, dated 26-06-1996.Further the learned Single Judge furtherobserved that though the appellants filed counter affidavit, it reveals that thematter was under consideration by the competent authority and appropriateadministrative action was taken.However, it is not clarified as to what actionwas taken by the authorities on the said allegation.When the matter wasclosed long back, the authorities are not justified in adding the sameallegations once again after four years.Ultimately, the learned SingleJudge, set aside the impugned order dated 12-07-2001.

6. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that the learnedSingle Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons and rightly allowedthe writ petition since the charges under Articles 1 to 3 are not proved and incharge under Article 4, he was warned by the proceedings, dated 10-12-1991, with regard to the misconduct committed by him.

7. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the orderpassed by the learned Single Judge.

8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.No costs.

_____________________________

JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

Dated:29-12-2011

____________________________________

JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

kvr