WP(TR)/349/2017 of M.A.WAHEED Vs The Transport Commissioner on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

In this n rit petition, the [petitioner ][is ][challenging ][the]punishment of withholding two annual [grade increments ][with]cumulative effect vide order dated [O8.O2.2O11 ][and ][also ][the]order in appeal dated 29.11.2011, [as ][illegal, ][arbitrary ][and ][to ][set]aside the same and consequently to [direct the ][respondents ][to]drop the disciplinary proceedings [against ][the ][peritioner- ][and ][to]pass such olher order or orders in the [interest ][o1'jilstice.]

2. Brief facts leading to the hling of [the ][presr:nt ][writ]petition are that the petitioner was originally [appointed ][rn]Agriculture Department during Lhe [year ][1983 ][Subsequently,]the petitioner was selected and appointed [as ][a .Junior ][Assistant]under the control of the respondent [No. ][1 ][in ][the ][year ][1990 and]later he was promoted as Senior Assistant in [1992 ][and hnally]as Administrative Officer during [2007 ][and ][he ][r'r-as ][working ][as]such, when he was served [with a ][charge ][Memo]No.5343 /V3/ 2004, dated O4.05.2OO5, framing [trvo ][charges]against him i.e., (1) he was found in [possession ]of an [excess]amount of Rs.2,O7O I - than the amount of Rs. [100/- ][declared ][in]

TfrD,Jv.4aa-No. 349 of, 2or7

the personal cash deciaration register on 17.05.2004 and failedto satisfactorily explain the same; (2) he failed to mention inwords about his personal cash in the personal cash register.

3. The petitioner was directed to submit his writtenstatement and the petitioner submitted his written statement on20.06.2005, denying the charges and duly explaining thatthough the petitioner has declared Rs. 10O/- as personal cash atthe time of attending to duty, when he had gone to home forlunch during afternoon, his wife had given him Rs.2,6O0/ forpaying fee of his son to the school and for purchasing his booksand school uniform after oftice hours and that he had paid feeof Rs.SOO/- at Sivasivani School of Excellence, Mahabubnagarand spent Rs.30/- for refreshments at the school and washaving balance of Rs.2,07O/- for purchasing books anduniform, which the petitioner intended to purchase after officehours and due to pressure of work in the ofhce, he could notrecord the cash in the personal declaration register. In respectof the charge-2, it was explained that inadvertently, he missedto mention the amount of his personal cash in the personalcash declaration registei and. there is no motive or maiafideintention and there is no truth in both the charges ald ffi7

3

TMD,Jw.qTr).No. 349 oJ 2017

requested the respondent No.1 to exonerate him from thecharges. Not satisfied with the explalation of tire petiti<>ner, alrenquiry was ordered into the matter by appointing the DeputyTransport Commissioner & Secretary, R.T.A., West [('iodavari]District, as an trnquiry Ofhcer, who conducted the enquiry andsubmitted his report on 27 .O9.2OO7, holding the charges asproved. The inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner alongwith the showcause notice dated 16.02.2010. The pctitionersubmitted a representation on the inquiry report on 19.03.20 10,reiterating his earlier defense and requested to drop theproceedings against him. However, not convinced r,.ith hisexplanation, the charges against the petitioner rvere held asproved and lhe punishment of stoppage of tu'o annual gradeincrements with cumuiative effect was imposed on thepetitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellateauthority who dismissed the same and thereafter, the pr:litionerhas hled thc present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitt-ed thatthe petitioner had totally denied the charges and therelbre, theEnquiry Officer ought to have conducted an enquiry by followinga detailed procedure laid down under Ruies 2O and 2l of ..!\e

CCA Rules, but there was no such enqr.riry held in this case. Itwas further submitted that the requirement of declaration ofcash in the personal cash register was to be done only in themorning hours, whereas the petitioner had extra cash when hewent home for lunch ald therefore, there was no vioiation ofany procedure by the petitioner. It is submitted that the EnquiryOfhcer has failed to consider the same and therefore, theenquiry is defective, further, as no statements of prosecutionwitnesses and the counter statements of the defense side havebeen recorded. It is further submitted that the disciplinarycash in the personal cash register was to be done only in themorning hours, whereas the petitioner had extra cash when hewent home for lunch ald therefore, there was no vioiation ofany procedure by the petitioner. It is submitted that the EnquiryOfhcer has failed to consider the same and therefore, theenquiry is defective, further, as no statements of prosecutionwitnesses and the counter statements of the defense side havebeen recorded. It is further submitted that the disciplinaryproceedings were initiated against as many as eight persons,out of whom one Sri.Prakasha Rao, Regional Transport Ofhcer,Chandra Shekar, Motor Vehicle Inspector and Venkat Reddy,Superintendent, were let off without any punishment and someothers were given lesser punishment than the petitioner.Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner therespondent No. I has not followed any uniform procedure whileinflicting the punishments and on this ground also, theimpugned orders were liable to be set aside.out of whom one Sri.Prakasha Rao, Regional Transport Ofhcer,Chandra Shekar, Motor Vehicle Inspector and Venkat Reddy,Superintendent, were let off without any punishment and someothers were given lesser punishment than the petitioner.Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner therespondent No. I has not followed any uniform procedure whileinflicting the punishments and on this ground also, theimpugned orders were liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Government Pieader for Services, on theother hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit fi1ed by the respondent No.1 and [submitted ][that ][during]a surprise visit check conducted by the [Anti ][Corruption ][Bureau]Officials on L7.O5.2OO4 in the oflice of the [RTO,]Mahaboobnagar, on credible information that the staff [working]in the ofhce of the Regional Transport Office, Mahatroobnagar,were indulging in corrupt activities by engaging twc [private]persons to collect mamools from the persons visiting the ofhcefor official trarsactions and that the petitioner vvas found inpossession oi Rs.2,O70/ and therefore, the department:rl actionagainst the petitioner and others were initiated and erfter [due]enquiry, tirc petitioner was awarded the pttnishrnent ofwithholding of two annual grade increments rvith curnulativeeffect. It is submitted that the inquiry report \ [ras ]forwarded tothe Government for obtaining the advice of the \/igilanceCommissioner in the matter on O5.O2.2OO8 and upon theinstructions of the Government in Memo No.1O962/Vig.(l[l/1/2OO4-5, dated 20.1O.20O8, to take necessary action Lo imposethe penalty of withholding two arrnual grade incremer-rts withcumulative effect, the order of punishment was passed. It . issubmitted that the petitioner has not given any plausible reasonor convincing reason for having so much cash in his possessionin Spite of declaring only Rs.100/- as his personal cash in the

personal cash register. Therefore, he justifred the punishment ofthe stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulativeeffect. As regards the contentions of the petitioner that manyother employees were also charged and some of them were letoff and only few others were imposed with a lesser punishmentand only the petitioner was imposed with the majorpunishment, the learned go\.ernment pleader submitted that thepunishment r,r'as proportionate to the misconduct of each of theemployres and therefore, there was no cause for anyinterference.

6. Learned counsel for the pctitroner for the pctitroner the pctitroner pctitroner has filed the listfiled the listthe listlistof Chronological events and also relied upon the followingjudgments in support of his contentions; Learned counsel for the pctitroner for the pctitroner the pctitroner pctitroner has filed the listfiled the listthe listlist llf [In the ][case ][of Eastern ][Power ][Distribution ][Company]

of A.P.Visakhapatnam, rep. by its Chief GeneralManager/HRD aad Another Vs. G.Satyanarayanall (21 D.Raja Rao Vs. State of A.P., rep. by its PrincipalSecretary, Housing Department, Velagapudi, Guatur Districtand Another2;Secretary, Housing Department, Velagapudi, Guatur Districtand Another2; 2 2021 (6) 1-J-'t 612 (APl (3f D.Raja Babu Vs' Principle [Secretary, Department ][of]Home, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, [Guntur ][District, ][Andhra]Ptadesh and others3.

7. However, this Court hnds [that ][the ][judgmenls ][relied]upon by the learned counsel [for the petitioner ][are ][not ][applicable]to the facts on hand.

8. In the case of Eastern Power [Distribution]Company of A.P.Visakhapatnam [(cited ][supral, ][it ][rvas ][hr:ld ][that]the respondents/ appellants therein [did not ][c-<amitre any]witness to prove the documents, [copies ][of ][lr'hich ][itre ][not]to [r ]he [petitioner ]and [not ][even ][marked ][as ]supplied ':xhibitsbefore the enquiry Ofhcer to [record ][a ][hnding ][based c'n ][such]clocuments and such finding [was ][held to ][have ][been ][vitiated ][by]irregularity. In the [present ][case, ][there ]'*'ere [no ][dot ][uments]referred to in the charge [memo ][and ][there ][is ][nci ][question ][of]recording of evidence.

g. In the case of D.Raja Babu [(cited ][supra\, ][the Court]was considering the case of the [appellate ][authority ][in ][not]considering the appeal objectively [ald ][though ][the ][appellate]authority used the words [tonsidered' ][and ]['rejected', ][there ][was----]

3 2023 (5)ALT 61 (nP)

II

a

TMD,Jw.qry-No. 349 oJ2ot?

no application of mind by the appellate authorigz. However, thisjudgment is a,lso not applicable to the facts of the case beforethis Court.

10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not been able to give any plausible reason forpossessing cash of Rs.2,O7O/- at the time of surprise check andthe explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory.the explanation given by the petitioner is not satisfactory.Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere withthe order of the punishment and the w-rit petition is liable to bedismissed.the order of the punishment and the w-rit petition is liable to bedismissed.

1 1. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Thereshall no order as to costs.

12. Miscelianeous petitions, if aly, pending in thiswrit petition, shall stand closed.

. SD/. V.KAVITHAASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//l-SECTION OFFICER

o,1One CC to SRl. POODATTU [AMARENDER Advocate ][OPUC]2Two CCs to GP for Services-I, [High ][Court for ][the ][State ][of ][Telangana ][at]Hyderabad. [OUTI

3Two CD CoPiesKKSPS6

HIGH COURT

DATED:3111212024

ORDER

WP(TR).No.349 ot 2017

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

1r [E ][:jIA]((\)^'(0 4 FE8 2C25a)i,,1' ../.';;/sr 'ar ls9,