- (1.) In this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the validity of order dated 02.12.2011 passed in O.A. No. 8278 of 2011 and, further, order dated 04.12.2012 passed in Rev. M.A. No. 3802 of 2011 in the said O.A., by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Petitioner, in the aforesaid O.A., before the Tribunal, has questioned order dated 28.07.2011 passed in G.O.Rt. No. 734, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Vig. I) Department dated 28.07.2011, by which penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments without cumulative effect is imposed against him on the alleged proven misconduct in the departmental enquiry conducted in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.
(2.) Necessary facts in brief are as under: During the year 1998, petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the office of Electrical Engineer, Nampally, Hyderabad. The then Executive Engineer (General) has invited tenders from electrical contractors for award of work of electrical installations in the newly constructed 20 bedded hospital in the premises of Juvenile Home for Girls, Nimboliadda, Hyderabad, worth about Rs. 38,000/-. Certain discrepancies with regard to proposed rates of certain items were noticed by the Electrical Engineer (General) before opening of tenders. One of the electrical contractors has filed complaint before the Upa Lokayuktha, A.P., against Sri Y.G. Edward, the then Electrical Engineer (General), R & B Secunderabad alleging that with regard to certain items in the aforesaid tender exorbitant rates were shown to cause loss of Rs. 10,616.70 Ps. Preliminary enquiry was conducted in the matter and based on the preliminary enquiry report, memo dated 01.05.2000 was issued to the then Executive Engineer (General) and to the petitioner herein to show cause why punishment should not be imposed by reverting the petitioner to lower post. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the said memo, inter alia, stating that there was neither any misconduct nor any willful fault which resulted in loss to the Government by the steps taken by him. Further proceedings were dropped pursuant to the show-cause notice, but, thereafter, regular departmental enquiry was initiated by framing charge against the petitioner and also the then Executive Engineer (Electrical) by name Y.G. Edward. The article of charge framed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to Memo No. 2221/Ser. I-3/2000-2, dated 09.01.2001, reads as under: That the said Sri D. Sreenivas, Assistant Engineer (R & B) Electrical, Office of the Electrical Engineer (General), Hyderabad, has proposed inflated rates over S.S.R. for the items of work at Sl. No. 12, 13 and 14 in Tender Schedules for the work of providing electrical installations to the newly constructed 20 bedded Hospital in the premises of Juvenile Home for Girls (Tahaggi-Jail) at Nimboli Adda, Hyderabad, and called for Tenders vide C.T. No. 9/99-2000, dt. 24.06.99. He has also manipulated the documents duly including cost of conduit pipes already laid with mala fide intention. Thereby, Sri D. Sreenivas, Assistant Engineer (R & B) Electrical, has attempted to cause financial loss of Rs. 10,617/- to the Government. Thus, he has violated Articles 3(1), Article-4 of A.P. Financial Code, Volume-I and Rules 3(1) and 3(2) of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Petitioner has filed explanation denying the allegations made against him in the said charge memo. Having not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, a regular enquiry was conducted. Basing on the report submitted by the enquiry officer, orders are passed by the Government imposing punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect. The enquiry which was conducted in the departmental proceedings is common against the petitioner and the then Executive Engineer (General). When order was passed by the 1st respondent-Government entrusting the matter to Commissioner of Inquiries for common enquiry, vide proceedings dated 02.06.2003; the Executive Engineer (Electrical) approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 4315 of 2003 which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 27.10.2006 directing the respondents therein to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order and if the said disciplinary proceedings are not completed within the timeframe as fixed by the Tribunal, no further action shall be taken. When the said disciplinary enquiry was not completed within the period as prescribed by the Tribunal and when the Commissioner of Inquiries was proceeding with the enquiry, the Executive Engineer (Electrical) filed C.A. No. 543 of 2008 in O.A. No. 4315 of 2003 complaining violation of the order dated 27.10.2006. At that stage, the 1st respondent-Government issued proceedings in G.O.Rt. No. 1523, T, R & B (Vig. I-2) Department dated 10.10.2008 dropping the proceedings insofar as the then Executive Engineer (Electrical) is concerned. Mainly the said O.A., was filed by the then Executive Engineer (Electrical) questioning the enquiry proceedings on the ground that there was abnormal delay and laches on the part of the disciplinary authority in initiating disciplinary proceedings and in completing the enquiry. Petitioner has participated in the enquiry proceedings. It was the defence of the petitioner that he did not prepare the estimates and the same were prepared by one Sri Abdul Gaffer, Field Officer and he had no role in preparing the said estimates. Further, it is pleaded that if any lapses are there on the part of the petitioner, the same is not with an intention, either to cause loss to the Government or with any other motive. In the enquiry proceedings, he also relied on the dropping of the proceedings against the then Executive Engineer (Electrical). It was also his case that as much as the very tender notification was cancelled even before opening the tenders, there was no willful fault on his part, so as to impose any punishment on him. In spite of the same, the disciplinary authority, vide G.O.Rt. No. 734, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Vig. I) Department dated 28.07.2011, basing on the report submitted by the enquiry officer, imposed penalty of stoppage of three increments, without cumulative effect, on the petitioner. The said order of the disciplinary authority was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal. Mainly, order imposing the aforesaid punishment against the petitioner is questioned on the ground of abnormal delay and laches on the part of the disciplinary authority in imposing punishment with reference to the allegations of the year 1998. Further, specific case of the petitioner is discrimination alleging that when common enquiry was conducted, proceedings were dropped against the then Executive Engineer (Electrical); in spite of the same, proceedings continued against him and the impugned order is passed. It is stated that orders are passed only when his case was due for promotion to the higher post.
(3.) Heard Sri P. Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.;