WP/11581/2004 of R.Seetharama Rao Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its on 22 December 2006

1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department,Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings,by its Secretary, Food and Agriculture Department,Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others.

.. Respondents.

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao)

The petitioner, who was working as Agricultural Officer and wascompulsorily retired from service, filed this Writ Petition, inter alia,seeking a writ of Certiorari assailing the order dated 28.03.1997 inR.P.No.27427 of 1989 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh AdministrativeTribunal (for brevity ‘the APAT’) at Hyderabad, dismissing hisapplication filed under para 7 of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal Order,1975 by confirming the order of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.693,Food and Agriculture (Agril.V) Department dt.19.09.1989 on the basisof the recommendations made by the Member of Tribunal forDisciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad in TEC No.92 of 1986, dated09.07.1987.

Heard Sri M. Dilip Rao, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-Iappearing for the respondents.

The facts and the chequered events in brief, which arise out ofthe present case, are that after obtaining degree in B.Sc., (Ag.) in theyear 1971, the petitioner was selected as Agricultural Officer in the Departmental Selection and accordingly he joined service on01.06.1974. While he was working in the said Office at ITDA,Palvancha, Khammam District in the year 1984, according to thepetitioner, a false and concocted complaint was lodged against him byBhukya Bhimla of Regalla village of Palvancha at the instance of thelocal Ex. MLA, who bore grudge against him, inter alia, alleging that hedemanded a bribe of Rs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only)each from fifteen villagers and however, when they paid onlyRs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) on 19.09.1984,he abused them in filthy language as to why the entire amount has notbeen paid and when he was about to take out petrol from the Motorbike, they have prevented him but he tore the currency notes intopieces and throw the same on the ground. It was further alleged in thecomplaint made against him, he stated that he is a tiger and he will notaccept any bribe and the money brought will be burnt with petrol. According to the petitioner, the very allegations do not constitute anyingredients of ‘offer and acceptance’ for registering a case under theprovisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and the very reference of thematter to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (for short ‘the TDP’)without even consulting the Head of the Department is in violation ofthe Fundamental Rules guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of theConstitution of India. Further, even before the TDP, the entire

Analysis

evidence and the material on record ware not properly appreciatedand the TDP had erroneously held that tearing notes into piecesamounts to misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of APCS(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules, 1961 without giving anyfinding as to the ‘offer and acceptance’ which is the basic ingredient. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the TDP did not properlytake into consideration the specific plea of alibi raised by him or thefact that the prosecution has failed to establish the prima facie case tohold him guilty of the charges. It is stated that in fact, he was in aCamp to Narsapur and Chittoor since 11.09.1984 and returned toKhammam on 18.09.1984 and accompanied the Project Officer fordiscussion with District Collector regarding the Orchard Programme on18.09.1984 and reached Palvancha at 7.30 p.m., and therefore, theentire story is only a concocted one. Further, it was stated that as perthe instructions of the Project Officer in Procs. No.Rc.No.C/7271/84,dated 04.09.1984, the Accounts Section should pay the amounts byindividual cheques duly getting the beneficiaries identified by theAgricultural Officers, ITDA, Palvancha whereas in this case, amountswere paid to them through cheques without they being identified byhim on 12.09.1984 and therefore, he has absolutely no knowledge. Thus, no case has been established against the petitioner for the impugned action. The first respondent-Government also did notproperly look into the report of the TDP in a proper perspective anderroneously accepted the said recommendation and ordered forcompulsory retirement. Even before the APAT where a challenge wasmade to the impugned action, the matter was kept pending for quitesome time and without properly considering the various pleas raisedby the petitioner, the same was rejected. Hence, the Writ Petition.

Sri M. Dilip Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner substantiallyby taking us through the entire evidence and the material on recordand the findings at both the levels, contends mainly to the effect thatabsolutely no case has been made out against the petitioner to imposesuch serious punishment of compulsory retirement at the very youngage since all the villagers, who alleged to have made the payment,have not been examined and the plea of alibi has remained notproperly looked into. Further, the findings at all levels are purely basedon presumptions and assumptions and lastly it is contended that thepunishment as imposed is quite not commensurate to the gravity of theoffence as alleged against the petitioner.

The learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for therespondents sought to repel the aforesaid contentions pointing out thatthere has been a detailed enquiry before the TDP in respect of theallegations and the charges as made against the petitioner and the findings are not only supported by the evidence and material but alsothe well laid reasons and therefore, this Court would not in any way goonce again to such re-appreciation to come to a different conclusion. Considering the submissions made in detail and in depth and atfull length, the only point which arises for consideration is as towhether the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner and theultimate punishment imposed is just ?

There is no dispute in regard to the service of the petitioner. Thecomplaint against the petitioner and as pointed out by him in theaffidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is to the effect that there is ademand for money at Rs.200 /- (Rupees two hundred only) each fromthe fifteen villagers which has not been acceded to, the petitioner torethe notes and throw away on the ground. The main contention of thepetitioner is that the entire allegations in the complaint are only at theinstance of an Ex.MLA, who bore grudge against him, and therefore,there is absolutely no basis or any bona fides. However, the factremains that on the basis of the aforesaid complaint and the order bythe Government for enquiry before the TDP vide G.O.Ms.No.237, Foodand Agriculture (Agrl.V) Department, dated 22.04.1986, the chargeincludes to the effect that while he was working as Agricultural Officera t Palvancha from November 1981 to October, 1984, actuated by corrupt motives and abuse of official power, he demanded a sum ofRs.250/- (Rupees two hundred and fifty only) from each of 15applicants for helping them in securing subsidy under landdevelopment scheme and after bargaining, he agreed to receiveRs.200/- (Rupees two hundred only) each and accepted Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only) on 19.09.1984 at Regallavillage near Tribal Hostel and therefore, he is found guilty ofmisconduct within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) of A.P. Civil Services(Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Rules 1961 framed under A.P.Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal), Act, 1960. After thematter went before the TDP, the petitioner pleaded not guilty andhence, there was a regular enquiry. Therefore, on behalf of theDepartment, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined to prove the aforesaidcharges, of which P.Ws.1 to 3 are the applicants. P.W.4 is theEx.MLA., P.W.5 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Palvancha PoliceStation, P.W.6 is the Panch for seizure of M.O.1, P.W.7 is theInspector, who conducted the investigation, P.Ws.8, 9, 11, 12 and 14are the Officials, P.W.13 is the Project Officer, P.W.10 is the scribe ofthe report made by P.W.1, and P.W.15 is the Inspector, whoconducted investigation. On appreciation of the depositions of thesewitnesses, the TDP by its order dated 09.07.1987 had categorically

found that there is a demand of bribe at the time of inspection of landsas supported by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and it was negotiated forsettlement. Further, the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner tothe effect that no independent witnesses are examined i.e., all theother applicants and by taking into consideration the said plea, theTDP held that the said fact itself is not fatal as long as the acceptableevidence is available on record. Even in regard to the plea of alibi asraised by the petitioner, the TDP did take into consideration about hisCamp and also the visit at Palvancha village on 19.09.1984 with allthe timings as mentioned and as spoken to by other witnessesespecially P.Ws.9 and 11, and found that the petitioner had went toPalvancha village and attended the Office work and where there is nomention about the arrival time, it cannot negative the visit to village inthe evening on 19.09.1984. Therefore, the petitioner has failed toestablish the plea of alibi to disprove the prosecution version andultimately basing upon the said report, the Government under theimpugned orders in G.O.Ms.No.693, dated 19.09.1989 and onexamination thereof, ordered to retire the petitioner from servicecompulsorily. It is these two proceedings which are assailed by thepetitioner before the APAT in the R.P.No.27427 of 1989 virtuallyreiterating the very same grounds as sought to be urged in this WritPetition especially to the effect that failure of prosecution to produce all the witnesses and make out any case and also the plea of alibi. Onthese and other aspects as contended on behalf of the petitioner, theAPAT went into the same in detail after going through the entireevidence and the material on record and held that the plea of thepetitioner is not acceptable and the APAT is satisfied with the reasonsgiven by the TDP and the said findings are un-assailable. Now, onceagain an attempt is being made on behalf of the petitioner to re-assertthat there is no independent evidence and more so the non-examination of other applicants is quite fatal and the petitioner couldnot have been at a place where the alleged incident alleged to havebeen taken since he was away. We have also carefully gone throughthe submissions made on behalf of the petitioner vis-à-vis theevidence, which has been let in before the TDP. However, thoughwith all the restraints in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226of the Constitution of India only with a view to see if there is anyperverse either at the level of TDP or even before the APAT, we madean attempt to peruse the entire material. However, we are satisfiedthat it cannot be said that any of the findings arrived at either before theTDP or before the APAT are in any way not supported by anyevidence or material or based on mere surmises and conjectures. Thepetitioner has hopelessly failed to make out any case of perversity in regard to the ultimate conclusion, which has been arrived at. Havingregard to such findings of fact as arrived at, this Court cannot go intothe same nor come to any different conclusion as such. The findingsat both the levels that the petitioner has demanded money, and aftercollecting part thereof, tore all the notes into pieces and also that theplea of alibi is being totally un-acceptable, do not warrant anyinterference. Coming to the other last plea is to the effect that thepunishment imposed is quite not commensurate to the gravity of thecharge. The very allegation of making demand of money is quite aserious one. Prima facie, we are of the view that no indulgence needbe shown nor warrant any exercise of discretion to lessen thepunishment. Hence, we do not find any merits in the above WritPetition.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

___________________

B. PRAKASH RAO, J

___________________________

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J