PETITIONER: GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH& ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: C. MURALIDHAR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/07/1997 BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. :-
Special leave granted.
C. Muralidhar, the respondent herein, was employed as
Motor Vehicle Inspector with the Government of Andhra
Pradesh. In 1987 a criminal case (C.C. No. 8 of 1987) was
filed against him wherein he was prosecuted for the offence
punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for
holding assets disproportionate to his known sources of
income. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against
the respondent on the basis of a charge memo dated January
21, 1988 issued by the Enquiry Officer under Rule 19(2) of
the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1963. Some of the charges in the said
charge memo related to holding of assets disproportionate to
the known sources of income while some charges related to
his having acquired the assets without permission of the
department in violation of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964. The respondent filed R.P. No. 3714 of
1989 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter referred `the Tribunal’) wherein he assailed
the validity of the charge memo dated January 21, 1988 on
the ground that in view of the pendency of the criminal case
wherein he was being prosecuted on the charge of possessing
assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, the
initiation of disciplinary proceedings for the same charge
was illegal. During the pendency of the said petition before
the Tribunal the Special Judge of SPE & ACB cases, Nellore,
by his judgment dated April 28, 1994, acquitted the
respondent of the charge under section 5(1)(e) read with
5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for possessing assets
disproportionate to the known source of income. The
aforesaid decision in the criminal case was not brought to
the notice of the Tribunal when R.P. No. 3714 of 1989 was
taken up. The Tribunal, while disposing of the said petition
on March 1, 1995, observed that further information was not
made available to the Tribunal regarding the criminal case
and directed that if the criminal case has already been
disposed of and the judgment has become final so far as the
issue pertaining to the disproportionate assets is
concerned, the departmental enquiry, cannot be held for the
very same charge of possessing assets disproportionate to
the known sources of income. The Tribunal was, however, of
the view that other charges in departmental proceedings that
the respondent acquired the assets without permission of the
department are not part of the charge in the criminal case
before the Special Judge and the Tribunal, therefore,
directed that it would be open to the authorities to proceed
with the charges regarding the acquisition and disposing of
properties without permission of the government or the
department or of other delinquencies as required under the
Government Servant’s Conduct Rules. After taking note of the
judgment of Special Judge dated April 28, 1994 in the
criminal case filed against the respondent, the Government
of Andhra Pradesh passed an order, G.O.Ms. No. 74 dated
April 24, 1995, whereby it was decided :-
“The government after careful
examination of the matter, have
decided that further action in the
criminal case of allegation of
disproportionate assets against
Sri. C. Muralidhar, Motor Vehicle
Inspector, be dropped, since he was
acquitted by the ACB Court and
found not guilty of the
allegation.”
In the said order there is no reference to the judgment
of the Tribunal dated March 1, 1995 in R.P. No. 3714 of
1989.
On February 20, 1996 a fresh charge memo (No.
50236/XI/83) was issued to the respondent under Rule 20(4)
of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification,
Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1991. The said charge memo
related to violation of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964 for acquiring and disposing of
properties without informing and taking permission from the
government for the same. The respondent filed another
petition (O. A. No. 2250 of 1996) before the Tribunal
challenging the validity of the said charge memo issued on
February 20, 1996. The said petition has been allowed by the
Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated June 4, 1996. The
Tribunal has held that in view of G.O.Ms. No. 74 dated April
24 24, 1995 dropping the disciplinary action initiated
against the respondent, it was not open to subordinate
authority to initiate disciplinary action by issuing charge
memo dated February 20, 1996. The Tribunal has, therefore,
set aside the said charge memo. Hence this appeal.
We have heard Shri K Ramkumar, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Shri L. Nageswar Rao; the
learned counsel for the respondent.
The judgment of the Tribunal dated March 1, 1995 in
R.P. No. 3714 of 1989 was confined to charges relating to
possessing assets disproportionate the known source of
income wherein the Tribunal had held that disciplinary
proceedings on the said charges could not be held. In the
said judgment the Tribunal had clearly indicated that other
charges in the disciplinary proceedings viz., that the
respondent had acquired assets without permission of the
government or department, were not part of the charge before
the Special Judge of SPE and ACB cases and it was open to
the authorities to proceed with the charges regarding
acquisition or disposing of properties without permission of
the government or the department or of other delinquencies
as required under the Government Servants’ Conduct Rules.
Though the said judgment of the Tribunal dated March 1, 1995
has not been referred to in the order, G.O.Ms. No. 74 dated
April 24, 1995 passed by the Government but the said order
is also confined in its application to the disciplinary
proceedings in so far as they related to charge of
possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of
income because in the said order reference has been made to
the judgment of the Special Judge dated April 28, 1994
whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under
section 5(1)(e) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Prevention Act. The direction regarding dropping
of proceedings in the order, G.O.Ms. No. 74, 1994 as
containing the direction that disciplinary proceedings
against the respondent in respect of other charges regarding
acquisition and disposing of properties without permission
to the government or the department as required under the
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services Rules, 1964 were also directed
to be dropped. In the circumstances we do not find any
infirmity in the charge memo dated February 20, 1996 issued
in respect of charge involving violation of Andhra Pradesh
Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 in acquiring or
disposing properties without permission of the government or
the department.
The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned
judgment of the Tribunal dated June 4, 1996 is set aside and
O.A. No. 2250 of 1996 filed by the respondent is dismissed.
This matter has been pending since long. The disciplinary
authority is directed to conclude the disciplinary
proceedings initiated on the basis of the charge memo dated
February 20, 1996 expeditiously, preferably within a period
of one year, No. order as to costs.
