Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2302 of 2005
PETITIONER:
The Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
RESPONDENT:
A. Venkata Rayudu
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/10/2006
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
MARKANDEY KATJU, J.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the
Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 17.11.2003 passed in
Writ Petition No. 17676 of 2003.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
The respondent worked as General Manager of Andhra Pradesh
Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (TRICOR),
Hyderabad from 15.6.1998 to 13.10.1999. On the basis of the report
submitted by the Managing Director dated 18.11.1999, the following
charges were framed against him:
"Article No. 1:
That the said Dr. Venkata Raidu, while functioning as
A.P. Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Finance Corporation
Limited (TRICOR), A.P. Hyderabad and presently
working as Deputy Secretary (Administration) at
Gurukulam A.P., Hyderabad violated the Orders issued
by the Government from time to time and despite the
specific instructions of the Managing Director, TRICOR,
A.P. Hyderabad issued in the year 1997 and in the year
1998 in connection with depositing of the funds of
TRICOR in various Cooperative/Private Banks.
Article No. 2 :
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in
the aforesaid office, the said Dr. Venkata Raidu, formerly
worked as General Manager and presently working as
General Manager, TRICOR and presently working as
Deputy Secretary (Administration) at Gurukulam, A.P.
Hyderabad though specific instructions were given by
the Managing Director, TRICOR (when it was noticed)
to withdraw the money deposited from the Cooperative
Banks and any other non-Nationalized Banks, has failed
to obey the instructions.
Article No. 3 :
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in
the aforesaid Office, the said Dr. Venkata Raidu formerly
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
worked as General Manager, TRICOR and presently
working as Deputy Secretary (Administration) at
Gurukulam, A.P. Hyderaband has violated the
instructions of Managing Director, TRICOR and failed to
withdraw the Deposits made with Cooperative/Private
Banks, and still an amount of Rs. 445.00 lakhs is due for
realization from the Cooperative/Private Banks as per the
details given below (as on 18.11.1999).
Sl. No. Name of Cooperative/ Amount
Private Bank (Rs. in lakhs)
--------- ------------------------------- ----------------
1. The Jawahar Cooperative Urban Rs. 400.00
Bank Ltd.
2. The First City Cooperative Rs. 20.00
Urban Bank Ltd.
3. The Charminar Cooperative Rs. 25.00
Urban Bank Ltd.
------- ----------------------------------- ----------------
Article No. 4 :
That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in
the aforesaid Office, the said Dr. Venkata Raidu,
formerly worked as General Manager, TRICOR and
presently working as Deputy Secretary (Administration)
at Gurukulam, A.P. Hyderaband, due to his in effecting
action the TRICOR could not release the amounts due to
the implementing Agencies and Beneficiaries in time and
there is a loss sustained to the TRICOR thereby putting
the Corporation as well as the Government in
embarrassing situation".
Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and basing on the enquiry
report, the Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department issued a show cause
notice dated 27.3.2001 to which he submitted his explanation. Finally, the
Government issued Orders in G.O. Ms. No. 100, dated 5.9.2002 dismissing
him from service.
The tribunal observing that Charge Nos. 2 to 4 were not found to be
proved by the Enquiry Officer, considered the matter with reference to
Charge No. 1 and observed that Charge No. 1 though proved could not be
said to be misconduct which could be held to be proved against the
appellant. The tribunal also found that in case of misconduct committed by
the employees jointly, the enquiry ought to have been conducted jointly as
required under Rule 24(1) of A.P.C.S. (CCA) Rules).
The tribunal further noticed that the Enquiry Officer exceeded its
powers by finding the appellant guilty of charge of negligence by enlarging
the scope of enquiry which was also unwarranted. Observing infirmity, the
tribunal found that the Order of dismissal was not sustainable and
accordingly, it was set aside. Hence, this appeal
As noticed from the narration of facts above, four Charges had been
framed against the respondent, but he was found not guilty by the tribunal in
connection with Charges Nos. 2 to 4. As regards Charge No. 1, the tribunal
held that though Charge No. 1 is proved, it cannot be said to be misconduct
by the appellant. Hence, the tribunal exonerated the respondent.
The High Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment observed thus:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
" It is also to be noted that the so-called directions of
G.Os issued by the Government on the subject were not
even placed before the Enquiry Officer. It is on record
that the delinquent Officer only renewed the deposits
already made by his predecessors. Under those
circumstances, the tribunal has categorically observed
that the charge No. 1 cannot be held to be proved on the
basis of the material available on record."
We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is a
settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used in
an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party
against whom such enquiry is held. In Charge No. 1, what is mentioned is
that the respondent violated the Orders issued by the Government.
However, no details of these Orders have been mentioned in Charge No. 1.
It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be
specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the G.O which is
said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that G.O, etc.
but that was not done. Copies of the said G.Os or directions of the
Government were not even placed before the Enquiry Officer. Hence,
Charge No. 1 was not specific and hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on
the basis of that Charge. Moreover, as the High Court has found, the
respondent only renewed the deposit already made by his predecessor.
Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be found guilty for
the offence charged.
Thus, there is no force in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.