Govt. of
Andhra Pradesh& ANR Vs. C. Muralidhar [1997] INSC 608 (22 July 1997)
S.C.
AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
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.
Back