Telangana High Court
WP/12266/2005 of The Union of India, rep by its Secretary to Government, Vs G. Satya Prakash Rao, on 26 December 2005
COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :12266 of 2005 Dated: 26th December 2005 Between: 1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance and others .....
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUREANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR
and
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.LAKSHMANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO :12266 of 2005
thDated: 26 December 2005
Between:
1. The Union of India rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance andothers
AND
..... PETITIONERS
G.Satya Prakash Rao
.....RESPONDENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J.CHELAMESWAR
W.P.NO.12266 OF 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice J.Chelameswar)
The respondents in O.A.No.400 of 2004 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’), are the petitioners herein. The sole respondentherein was the applicant in the abovementioned O.A., which was allowed by an order dated01-10-2004. Challenging the correctness of the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
The respondent was working as an Inspector of Customs and Central Excise. Hewas served with a charge-memo dated 28-07-1999. The substance of the charge-memo isthat he acquired certain assets like, a ZEN Maruti Car, without intimating the said fact to thecompetent authority. It appears that a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act,is also registered against the respondent on various heads including the charge ofpossession of disproportionate assets including the abovementioned Maruti Car apart fromother items.
In the background of the abovementioned facts, the respondent approached theTribunal, praying that the departmental enquiry be stayed pending criminal trial into thecharges referred to above. The Tribunal by the impugned order, was pleased to allow theO.A., in substance following a judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF RAJASTHANv. B.K.MEENA & OTHERS, which stood referred by a decision of the Supreme Court inHINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD & OTHERS v. SARVESH BERRY.
It is also a case, where simultaneously, the departmental proceedings as well as thecriminal case of disproportionate assets were launched against the respondent before theSupreme Court. The departmental proceedings were initiated on the ground of not filing thecorrect property returns in accordance with the relevant service rules, applicable to therespondent therein. The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the pendency of the criminal case, in the circumstances, was not a ground for staying the departmentalproceedings.
In the present case also, the scope of the departmental enquiry is limited to theissue whether there was a dereliction on the part of the respondent to give appropriateintimation of the acquisition of an asset as required under the service rules relevant to therespondent. Assuming for the sake of argument that the respondent has enough resourcesother than his salary or income arising out of his employment, the failure to give anintimation itself is a misconduct. The existence of a legal sources of income does notabsolve him of the misconduct of which he is charged. Whereas in the criminal case, thescope of enquiry is confined to the existence of the legal resources for acquisition of suchassets, if the petitioners do not establish the existence of such resources, a presumptionwould be drawn that such assets were acquired through ill-gotten wealth. The scope of boththe proceedings is totally different and we see no reason to stay the departmentalproceedings in the background of the abovementioned facts and the reasons given.
The writ petition, is therefore, allowed setting aside the impugned order. No costs.
----------------------J.Chelameswar, J
---------------------------
P.Lakshmana Reddy, J