V.V.S.Rao - (1.) THE petitioner while working as Tahsildar of Kothapatnam in Prakasam District, on a request made by Peram Ramu, the Sarpanch of Alluru Gram Panchayat, furnished certain information about the alienation of land admeasuring Acs.20.55 in Alluru Village in favour of Ongole Municipality for establishing dumping of transit point. It appears the said Ramu filed W.P.No.32702 of 2010 assailing the proceedings of the District Collector alienating the land to Ongole Municipality. In that writ petition, he had relied on the information furnished by the petitioner.
(2.) FOR the reason that after gathering the information from the Village Revenue Officer and Surveyor, the petitioner furnished information to Ramu under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the RTI Act), he was ordered to be placed under suspension by proceedings dated 05.4.2011 of the District Collector. Curiously the said order nowhere mentions about any negligent conduct or malfeasance or misfeasance or financial abuse on the part of the petitioner. Be that as it may, being aggrieved by the order of suspension dated 05.4.2011, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3061 of 2011 in May, 2011. The learned Tribunal appears to have directed the Government Pleader to obtain instructions. Subsequently on 18.5.2011, the learned Tribunal passed the following order. Admit. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in four weeks. As the applicant furnished information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, being the concerned officer, which was not liked by his superior authorities, he is kept under suspension. In these circumstances, as there is no misappropriation or misuse of the funds, the impugned proceedings Rc.No.A1/811/2011, dated 05.4.2011 issued by the 1st respondent, keeping the applicant under suspension, is suspended, and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant into service as Tahsildar, Kothapatnam, Prakasam District, immediately. The said order was not implemented. The petitioner was not reinstated in spite of clear direction by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition for directions to the Government of Andhra Pradesh to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent for not implementing the orders of the learned Tribunal passed on 18.5.2011; for immediate reinstatement of the petitioner; and for payment of salary from May, 2011 onwards. This writ petition was filed on 27.7.2011. The same was listed before this Bench on 01.8.2011. By that time, the petitioner was superannuated on 31.7.2011. However, having regard to the prayer and allegations of negligence and abdication of duties on the part of the District Collector, we directed the District Collector to file affidavit.
(3.) THE District Collector filed affidavit stating that the copy of the order dated 18.5.2011 of the Tribunal was received by him on 21.5.2011 along with the representation of the petitioner; and an application for vacating the ex parte order being VMA No.1047 of 2011 was filed on 29.5.2011, which is pending. Though the Collector also refers to the background of the case including the allotment/alienation of land to Ongole Municipality for establishing dumping of transit point, it is not necessary for the purpose of this case to refer to the same. Except stating that a vacate stay application was moved, nothing substantial in justification of non-implementation of the order of the Tribunal is averred in the counter affidavit. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Services-II. In paragraph-9 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, the petitioner made an allegation that the fourth respondent the District Collector abdicated his functions to the sixth respondent i.e., the Honble Minister of Municipal Administration, and was bent upon not implementing the orders of the Tribunal. It would be indeed most sorry state of affairs, if District Magistrates and Collectors discharge their enormous powers under various statutes, to the dictates of the elected representatives even if they are Ministers. The requirement of acting impartially is as much necessary in the case of administrative functionaries as in the case of judicial officers, Justice should not only be done but seen to have been done, is an edict which applies even to administrative authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions. Any disciplinary proceeding there is no gainsaying is a quasijudicial.;