N.V. Suryanarayana vs A.P. Khadi Board and Another

M.N. Rao, J.—This writ appeal is from the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 5021 of 1987 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein challenging the legality of the order, dated October 24, 1980, in the proceedings bearing No. Estt/24/G1780 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Khadi and Village Industries Board (for short "the Board") appointing an Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry into three charges conocraing his failure to account for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- entrusted to him as imprest amount at the time when be was transferred from Nalgonda to Nirmal on May 12, 1980, and also two subsequent orders of punishment, one in the proceedings bearing No. Estt/G 1/24/80, dated January 27, 1982, and the other in the proceedings bearing No. Estt/24/Gl/80, dated September 24, 1982. We may briefly state the facts leading to the present writ appeal.

The appellant was working as Superintendent in the office of the Board. During the year 1979-80, he was promoted as in-charge Assistant Development Officer. A sum of Rs. 10,000/-, it appears, was entrusted to the Assistant Development Officer as imprest amount When the appellant was transferred from Nalgonda to Nirmal, it appears, without rendering an account in respect of the said imprest amount, he joined the new post at Nirmal. The said amount of Rs. 10,000/-, it appears, was advanced as loan by the Small Farmers Development Agency (for short "the SFDA") to enable the Board to incur expenditure for the purpose of obtaining the photographs of the rural artisans identified by the Board for eligibility for financial assistance. After the identification was made and the photographs of the eligible allottees were taken and attested on the application forms, the Board would collect a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from each of the beneficiaries and remit the same to the SFDA. On January 9, 1980, after the appellant was transferred to Nirmal, his successor took charge. The failure on the part of the appellant to render the account resulted in the Board framing three charges sliding into each other and centering around the imprest amount of Rs. 10,000/-.

On September 24, 1980 the appellant was suspended pending inquiry into the charges, and the Inquiry Officer was appointed by order, dated October 24, 1980. After regular inquiry by the Inquiry Officer, an adverse report was submitted by him, as a consequence of which the Board passed an order in the proceedings bearing No. Estt/Gl/24/80, on January 27, 1982 directing stoppage of two future increments with cumulative effect and calling upon the appellant to remit a sum or Rs. 12,767-50 ps. made up of Rs. 10,000/- the principal and interest calculated at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent per annum. The period, during which he was under suspension, was not treated as duty period.

Challenging the legality of the aforesaid order, dated January 27, 1982, the appellant filed W.P. No. 992 of 1982 in this Court. A learned single Judge allowed that writ petition at the stage of its admission on August 15, 1982 giving liberty to the appellant to prefer statutory appeal to the Board since it (writ petition) was tiled without exhausting the available alternative remedy. In compliance with the order in the writ petition, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Board on April 29, 1982. Quite surprisingly even before the appeal was taken up for consideration, the Board issued two show-cause notices, dated April 1, 1982 and May 27, 1982, calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why further disciplinary action should not be taken for non-compliance of the condition imposed in the punishment order, dated January 27, 1982 with regard to reimbursement of the money to the Board. Finally, an order was passed on September 24, 1982 in the proceedings bearing No. Estt/24/Gl/80 removing the appellant from service. Challenging the legality of two orders of punishment, dated January 27, 1982 and September 24, 1982, the appellant filed W.P. No. 5021 of 1987 before this Court A learned single Judge dismissed that writ petition taking the view that the authority, which imposed the punishment, was competent in law to do so and that the second order of punishment was passed rightly, as the first order was not complied with by the appellant Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed.

After hearing both sides and going through the records, we are of the considered view that this appeal must succeed. It was rather curious when this Court permitted the appellant herein in W.P. No. 992 of 1982 to prefer a statutory appeal to the Board and when he, in fact, preferred such an appeal, without considering that appeal on merits the Board thought it fit to issue two show-cause notices, one on April 1, 1982 and the other on June 27, 1982, which culminated in the order dated September 24, 1982, removing the appellant from service. The order is, therefore, clearly unsustainable in law; the Board was bound to consider the appeal on merits and pass the order. Instead of so doing, in a routine and mechanical manner, without being conscious of the fact that the appellant had a right to prefer an appeal and such an appeal had been preferred and pending consideration, the second order of punishment was passed on September 24, 1982. The Board thus acted not only unreasonably but in an arbitrary manner.

What remains to be considered is the order dated January 27, 1982, by which two increments of the appellant were cut with cumulative effect and he was directed to remit a sum of Rs. 12,767-50 ps. The file was placed before us when we called for it The learned counsel appearing for the Board could not dispute the fact that although a note was put up to the Chairman of the Board by the office suggesting the dismissal of the appeal and the Chairman has appended his signature, no steps were taken to communicate that order to the appellant. In the light of this fact, the averment in para 12 of the counter- affidavit that the Board on June 26, 1982 dismissed the appeal of the appellant confirming the order of punishment dated January 27, 1982, is contrary to the record.

His net result is that the appeal preferred by the appellant has not yet been disposed of even though more than 13 years have elapsed since the passing of the order of punishment, dated January 27, 1982. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the consideration of the appeal by the Board, the appellant submitted his explanation rendering proper account as to the imprest amount of Rs. 10,000/- entrusted to him, and the same (explanation) was accepted by the Board and he was promoted to the next higher post, in which he is presently working. Therefore, the charges levelled against the appellant fall to the ground. Although technically the appeal has not been disposed of by the Board, no useful purpose will be served by our remitting the matter once again to the Board, after lone lapse of nearly 13 1/2 years, to pass a formal i order allowing the appeal. In the circumstances, we are of the view that it is a fit case for setting aside the order of punishment, dated January 27, 1982.

In the result, we allow this writ appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and quash two orders of punishment, one in the proceedings bearing No. Estt/Gl/24/80, dated January 27, 1982, and the other in the proceedings bearing No. Estt/24/Gl/80, dated September 24, 1982, of the respondent Board. It is needless to mention that the order dated August 24, 1980, appointing the Inquiry Officer was merged with the order of punishment, dated

January 27, 1982 and the effect of quashing the latter order necessarily implies that the Inquiry Officer''s report is set aside. As the explanation of the petitioner regarding the imprest amount of Rs. 10,000/- was accepted on March 6, 1984, he is entitled to all the consequential benefits accruing to him subsequent to that date like restoration of seniority, fixation of pay scale and payment of arrears of salary and allowances and consideration for promotion to next higher post

There shall be no order as to costs.