J.Jayavanth Rao v. The State Of Telangana,
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER WRIT PETITION No. 21966 OF 2016 ORDER (ORAL) (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait):
Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 01-03-2016 passed in O.A.No. 473 of 2016 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'). Vide the aforesaid O.A., the petitioner sought direction thereby directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of District Registrar for the panel year 2010-11 in pursuance of his representation dated 15-04-2015 in the next Departmental Promotion Committee meeting without reference to the pending inquiry proceedings No. S/323/2014-1 dated 09-06-2014.
The learned Tribunal disposed of the O.A. by recording as under: "The charges pending against the applicant are grave and serious in nature. Because of the activity of the applicant, the state exchequer has lost revenue of more than Rs.32,00,000/-. Though it is sought to be contended that some others are responsible for non-verification of the banks' scroll, the same cannot be accepted at this stage as it is exculpatory. When charges are pending against the applicant involving grave allegations, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it is not desirable that the applicant's name should be considered for promotion to the post of District Registrar. In case the applicant succeeds in the departmental enquiry, then his case will considered for promotion as District Registrar on that basis.
SKK, J. & Dr. SA, J.
wp_21966_2016 Hence, the Original Application is dismissed." The grievance of the petitioner is that departmental inquiry was completed against the petitioner and thereafter, he made representation dated 15-04-2015 to consider his case for promotion to the post of District Registrar for the panel year 2010-11. However, we agree with the learned Tribunal that the State exchequer lost revenue of more than Rs.32,00,000/- and charges are pending against the petitioner involving grave allegations, it is not desirable that the petitioner's name should be considered for promotion to the post of District Registrar.
The fact remains that the inquiry against the petitioner was completed on 22-03-2015 but the said inquiry report has not been supplied to the petitioner till date; therefore, he could not file reply to the finding of the inquiry officer. Consequently, the disciplinary authority could not take its decision of the inquiry against the petitioner.
We are of the agreement with the petitioner to the extent that once the inquiry has been completed, the disciplinary authority is supposed to send the inquiry report to the charged officer and ask his reply for the same. Thereafter, considering the reply filed by the delinquent officer, the disciplinary authority has to drop the charges or impose punishment.
Keeping in view the averments made in the instant petition and the submission of learned counsel for the parties, we hereby direct respondent No.s 1 to 3 to complete the inquiry proceedings within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
SKK, J. & Dr. SA, J.
wp_21966_2016 The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs. ______________________ SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.
_______________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J.
Date: 08-06-2017.
JSK