THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus A. VENKATA RAYUDU

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 31-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
A. VENKATA RA YUDU 
OCTOBER 31, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Disciplinary proceedings-Charge that Respondent, 
General Manager in the State Scheduled Tribe Co-operative Finance 
Corporation, violated GOs in connection with deposit of funds-Details of C 
GOs not mentioned in the charge-Copies of GOs not even placed before the 
EnquilJ' Officer-Held: Charge was not specific and hence no finding of guilt 
could be fixed on Respondent on that basis-Moreover, Respondent only 
renewed deposit made by his predecessor-Tribunal rightly set aside his 
dismissal-Principles of Natural Justice. 
Four charges of misconduct were framed against Respondent while he 
was working as General Manager of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes 
Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (fRICOR), Hyderabad. An enquiry 
D 
was conducted and based on the enquiry report, the Commissioner, Tribal 
Welfare Department issued show cause notice to which the Respondent E 
submitted his explanation. Finally, the Government issued orders dismissing 
him from service. 
The Tribunal held that Charge Nos.2 to 4 were not found to be proved 
by the Enquiry Officer and that Charge No.1 though proved could not be said 
to be misconduct against the Appellant. It was alleged in Charge No.1 that F 
Respondent violated the Orders issued by the Government in connection with 
the deposits made by TRICOR in various Cooperative/Private Banks. 
Ultimately Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal. Hence, the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 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 
G 
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 H 
73 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A Charge No. l. 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 n·ot done. Copies of the said G.Os or directions of the 
Government were not even placed before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, Charge 
B No. 1 was not specific and hence no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis 
of that Charge. Moreover, the respondent only renewed the deposit already 
made by his predecessor. Hence, the Respondent cannot be found guilty for 
the offence charged. [77-A-C) 
c 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2302 of2005 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2003 of the High Court of 
Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17676/2003. 
Sundaravardhan, Manoj Saxena, Rajnish Kr. Singh, Rahul Shukla and 
T. V. George for the Appellants. 
H.S. Guru Raja Rao ,Y.Raja Gopala Rao and Y. Ramesh for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This appeal has been filed against the 
E impugned judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court 
dated 17.11.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 17676 of2003. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 
The respondent worked as General Manager of Andhra Pradesh 
F 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: 
G 
H 
"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 
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH 1•. A. VENKA TA RA YUDU [MARKANDEY KA TJU, J.) 75 
SI. No. 
1. 
2. 
3. 
in the year 1997 and in the year 1998 in connection with depositing A 
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, fonnerly worked as General Manager B 
and presently worki
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.