9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1583X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 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 Enquiry Officer recommended for necessary disciplinary action to be taken against both of them on the ground that both of them were jointly responsible for the fraudulent entry made in the Service Register. 6. Therefore, another enquiry followed in July, 2006 and the second Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 13-03-2008. 7. Enclosing a copy of the enquiry report dated 13-03-2008, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes sent a commun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer; (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 imposing major penalties. Under sub-rule (2) of Rule 20, the disciplinary authority, if he is of the opinion that there are grounds for enquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct against a Government servant, he may himself enquire into it or appoint an authority to enquire into it. But the moment it is proposed by the disciplinary authority to hold an enquiry, the disciplinary authority, either by himself or by an authority subordinate to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected 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 undertaken by the first Enquiry Officer was a full pledged enquiry. In the enquiry, two persons by name J.V. Chalapathi Rao and M. Koteswara Rao were examined apart from the writ petitioner. It became an obvious and an admitted fact that the entry regarding the pass in the departmental test was not made by the petitioner himself in his Service Register. But the fact that there was an entry found in the Service Register was quite clear. 20. It also became evident in the cours ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring 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 have benefited at the time of future promotion as ACTO. I, therefore, recommend that necessary disciplinary action be taken against the D.O., Sri K.R. Suryanarayana and also against Sri Koteswara Rao, who are jointly responsible for the fraudulent pass entry in the S.R. of the delinquent, as per rules, in the light of the above findings." 24. The conclusion reached by the first Enquiry Officer, which we have extracted above, shows that the Enquiry Officer came to the positive conclusion that the petitioner as well as Ko ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 on the initial of Sri Chalapathi Rao, Sr. Asst. also. The main basis of the conclusion of the enquiry report was the deposition of Sri M. Koteswara Rao, Sr. Asst who mentioned that he made the entry on the request of Sri Chalapathi Rao and Sri K. R. Suryanarayana in the first instance and alter said he made the entry on the request of Sri K.R. Suryanarayana only and again changed his stand and later in the statement recorded in August 2006, he stated that he had made the entry on the request of Sri Chalapathi Rao and Sri K.R. Suryanarayan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
