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.