M NAGALAKSHMAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1972-8-9
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on August 03,1972

M.NAGALAKSHMAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) (Judgment of the Court delivered by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice): Mr. Y. Suryanarayana, Advocate moved on behalf of all these petitioners for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings No. Estt. IX(2) 1031/71-A dated 28-5-1972 of the 2nd respondent suspending the petitioners during the pendency of enquiry of certian charges against the petitioners.
(2.) Seldom do we come across misappropriation, of course, alleged on a large scale involving more than hundred members of the service both high and low as herd It was alleged that there has been "a deliberate , calculated, preplanned affair from the officers of the Directorate to the lower level in the District of Ananthapur in Soil Conservation." The alleged misappropriation is said to be of about Rs. 11 lakhs. The Government therefore suspended the six officers with whom we are not concerned and the: Director of Agriculture was asked to suspend all the soil Conservation Assistants and Sub Assistants working under the four Assisstant Soil Conservation Offtcers with immediate effect and to report to the Government within a week. These suspensions were effected pending the enquiry into the said alleged misappropriation. From the note file it appears that the Minister, Agriculture, also passed the following order on 16-5-1972. "The Director of Agriculture may be charge-sheeted for his slackness and incapacity in exercising control over such large scale fraud under his very nose. He never cared to find out what is happening there partly due to his lethargy and fartly due to his ignorance of technical aspects of work, thereby proving himself incapable of holding the post of Director of Agriculture."
(3.) The file was marked to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister wanted the Chief Secretary and Secretary, Agriculture, to speak to him in regard to the order passed by the Minister against the Director of Agriculture. In regard to the suspension of the officers referred to above, he agreed with the order of the Minister suspending these officers. The Chief Minister seems to have discussed the matter with the Chief Secretary. The note-file, however, is silent as to what happened to the order of the Minister to charge-sheet the Director of Agriculture, We are, however, not concerned with that aspect in this case. We have referred to it only to point out that the Director of Agriculture was also allegedly involved in the said matter.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.