http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH& ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: C. MURALIDHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/07/1997

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

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.