9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services (A.P.). 3. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 14- 02-1985 on compassionate grounds. He was later promoted as Senior Assistant on 30-04-1994. He was subsequently transferred to the Head Office in the year 1996. 4. While the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in the Head Office, a pseudonymous complaint dated 24-09-2003 was received to the effect that the petitioner claimed to have passed the departmental test in Local Audit Fund, with a bogus certificate. On the basis of the said complaint, the Secretary to the Commercial Taxes was appointed as the Enquiry Officer by the proceedings dated 13-10-2003. By the said memo the Enquiry Officer himself was directed to frame charges. 5. Accordingly, a charge memo was issued on 16-01-2004 and an enquiry followed. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 11-08-2004. It was a very peculiar report whereby the Enquiry Officer fixed responsibility both on the petitioner and another employee for a wrong entry made in the Service Register of the petitioner as though he had passed the departmental tests. Even while holding so, the E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt are: (1) that the appointment of the Enquiry Officer even before the framing of the charges and allowing the Enquiry Officer himself to frame charges is contrary to Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct, Classification and Appeal) Rules; (2) that after the Enquiry Officer originally appointed, submitted a report without recording any finding of guilt on the charges, there was no question of appointing another Enquiry Officer; (3) that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse in as much as the person on whose evidence the petitioner was found guilty, made three different statements at three different points of time; and (4) that in the light of the admitted fact that the petitioner would not stand to benefit by having a false entry in his Service Register as though he had passed the departmental tests, a penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect was not warranted at all. 11. On the first contention, it is true that a charge memo should normally precede the appointment of an Enquiry Officer. The Scheme of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, contemplate a series of steps in the procedure for imposin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been better if the appointment of the Enquiry Officer followed the framing of the charges. But the mere violation of the sequence in which things ought to have been done, would not vitiate the enquiry. This is due to two reasons viz., (a) that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner; and (b) that in any case the disciplinary authority have the power under sub-rule (3) to have the charges drawn up by someone else. Hence, the first contention was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 18. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first Enquiry Officer submitted a report without recording a positive finding as to whether the charges were proved against the petitioner or not. Therefore, the only thing that the disciplinary authority could have been done is to accept the report and drop further proceedings or to take a different view after issuing a show cause notice. Instead, another Enquiry Officer was appointed and he proceeded with the enquiry. This, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is contrary to law. 19. It is seen from the enquiry report dated 11-08-2004 submitted by the first Enquiry Officer that was under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n immediately thereafter. Responsibility of Sri M. Koteswara Rao, Jr. Asst. and responsibility of Sri K.R. Suryanarayana, D.O.: It is confirmed that the entry is made by Sri Koteswara Rao with his own Hall ticket number in the S.R. of Sri K.R. Suryanayrana, the D.O. According to his own deposition, he made it at the request of Sri K.R. Suryanarayana. Since Suryanarayana would be the only beneficiary from the pass entry, the statement of Sri Koteswara Rao derives definite credibility. Therefore, considering the overall circumstantial evidence as aforesaid, it is concluded that Sri Suryanarayana had get the entry made into his S.R. through Sri Koteswara Rao for his future benefit and therefore, both employees have to be held responsible for the fraudulent entry. Sri Koteswara Rao cannot escape responsibility as he entered his own Registered Number with which he passed the exam in another employee s S.R. However, the entry is made subsequent to the D.Os promotion as Sr. Asst. and is also not a prerequisite for such a promotion and therefore, he the D.O., had not derived benefit of promotion through the fraudulent pass entry so far. However, the pass entry would hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Mr. M. Koteswara Rao made different statements at different points of time. This is the reason why the first Enquiry Officer fixed the responsibility even upon him and recommended disciplinary action against him. The discrepancies in the statements of M. Koteswara Rao have been analyzed by the Enquiry Officer. Once the discrepancies are noted and thereafter the Enquiry Officer comes to a particular conclusion, then there is no question of perversity of findings. Therefore, the third ground is also to be rejected. 30. As a matter of fact, the disciplinary authority, in his final order dated 10-12-2009 had specifically dealt with this aspect. The relevant portion of the order of the disciplinary authority reads as follows: A single charge was framed against the individual which was that he did not pass Local Fund Audit Test Paper-IV but obtained entry in his SR fraudulently by forging the signature of the DCTO for his personal gain. The enquiry was conducted as per due procedure and based on the report of the Forensic Lab, it is confirmed that the signature of the DCTO was forged but who did this was not established conclusively and definitely. No definite opinion was given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
