Judgment
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010312022025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15734/2025 Between:
1. M SUDHAKARARAO,, S/O (LATE) M RAJESWARARAO AGE- 49 YEARS, OCC- JOINT COMMISSIONER (STATE TAX), O/O JOINT COMMISSIONER (STATE TAXES).
NEAR GOOTHY ROAD, KURNOOL-518002
...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (VIGILANCE-VI) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto declare the Inquiry report dated
2
25.05.2023 and the disciplinary proceedings as illegal and set aside GO Rt No 126 dated 17-02-2025 through which major punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner and consequently promote the petitioner as Additional Commissioner(ST) by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, it is humbly prayed tosuspend GO Rt No 126 dated 17-02-2025 through which major punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitionerand pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, it is humbly prayed todirect the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for Additional Commissioner(ST) without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner which culminated punishment vide GO RtNo 126 dated 17-02-2025and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.15734 of 2025 dated 30.06.2025 and dismiss the writ petition and pass
3
IA NO: 4 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to fix an early date and expedite the hearing of I.A. No. 2 of 2025 in W.P.
No. 15734 of 2025, subject to the convenience of this Hon'ble Court, as the 2nd Respondent is taking steps to effect promotions without considering the claim of the petitioner for Addl. Commissioner (ST), pending disposal of the present Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. J SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.15734 of 2025 O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside G.O.Rt.No.126, dated 17.02.2025, whereunder major penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was imposed on the Petitioner.
2.
The facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:-
Petitioner was appointed as Commercial Tax Officer pursuant to APPSC notification in the year 2007. Thereafter, Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner (ST). While so, Petitioner was transferred to Visakhapatnam-II Division in July, 2022 after formation of the said Division vide G.O.Ms.No.502, dated 01.07.2022.
3.
One person by name P.S.N.Sastry, Advocate, made a complaint through e-mail dated 01.12.2022 that the staff under the control of Joint Commissioner, Visakhapatnam Division-II i.e.
P.Jaya Shankar, while working as Deputy Commissioner (ST),
5
Visakhapatnam Division-II had committed unlawful activities since six months and during the short period, he had earned crores of rupees using his power by threatening the dealers community as well as departmental persons. It is further alleged that P. Jaya Shankar had formed one team (collection wing) with Sri P. Prasanth Kumar, GSTO, Sri B. M. M. Kishore, GSTO, Sri Prasanth Bhushan, A.E.O and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, GSTO only to collect bribes in and around Visakhapatnam-II Division and Anakapalli Districts on behalf of Joint Commissioner (ST) and giving assurance to the dealers that no further interceptions, audits and harassment will be made during the said financial year. It is also alleged that huge formalities from the tax payers with the name of new building construction was taken from builder association, Iron and Steel, Works Contractor (Railways) and Aluminium & Brass, Iron Scrap Dealers Association totalling to Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs.
4.
Based on said complaint, the charge memorandum was issued against the Petitioner under Rule 20 of A.P.C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991.
6
5.
In the list of witnesses, the complainant P.S.N. Sastry was cited as a witness and the complaint was cited as one of the documents on which the charges were sought to be sustained.
6.
Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations in totality on 03.04.2023 and an enquiry report was submitted on 25.05.2023, wherein all the four charges framed against the Petitioner were held proved. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner was imposed a penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide impugned order, dated 17.02.2025. Hence the Writ Petition is filed.
7.
A counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No.1 justifying the penalty imposed on the Petitioner. It was stated that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by one S. Sekhar, Additional Commissioner (ST), Regional GST Audit & Enforcement Office, Visakhapatnam and based on the preliminary enquiry report, dated 06.12.2022, the departmental enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner and other Officers.
8.
Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the Respondents.
7
9.
The genesis of the departmental enquiry against the Petitioner is the complaint of one P.S.N. Sastry through e-mail, dated 01.12.2022 about illegal amounts collected by the then Deputy Commissioner P.Jaya Shankar and his team named above. In the statement of imputation, the amounts allegedly collected from the Builders Association, Iron and Steel, Works Contractor (Railways) and Aluminium & Brass, Iron Scrap Dealers Association were also specified.
10.
The four Articles of charges read as under:- Charge:-I
That one M/s PSN Sastry, Advocate, (through e-mail letter Dated. 02.12.2022) has filed a complaint against certain employees working Visakhapatnam-II Division, has committed grave misconduct in as much as, under the control of Sri M. Sudhakara Rao, Joint Commissioner (ST) activities by using their powers to threaten the dealers community as well as he allowed the staff working under his control for committing the unlawful the departmental persons with the intention of huge illegal gratifications.
Charge:-II
That Sri M. Sudhakara Rao, Joint Commissioner (ST) Visakhapatnam-II Division has failed in regular day-to-day administration and exercised slack supervision.
Charge:-III
Sri M.
Sudhakara Rao, Joint Commissioner (ST) Visakhapatnam-II Division allowed the deputations unauthorizedly i.e., Officers of other Offices to work in his Office even though the individuals have been officially
8
transferred and relieved in the month of July 2022 and thus, violated the transfer guidelines and exhibited utter insubordination by disobeying the superior Officers instructions.
Charge:-IV
Sri M.
Sudhakara Rao, Joint Commissioner (ST) Visakhapatnam-II Division has vicarious responsibility on the misconduct/misbehavior of the Officers and staff working in O/o the JC, VSP-II division i.e., Sri.P.Prasanth Kumar GSTO, Sri. Syed Aziz, GSTO, Sri.B.V.Anand, GSTO, and Sri. R. Subbareddy, AEO, Sri.J.Dharampal, AEO and Sri.
B.Someswara Rao, AEO of Airport Circle as they have indulged in illegal practices by approaching the taxpayers and collecting formalities in his name.
11.
The Articles of Charge I, II and IV are in relation to lack of proper supervision of the Petitioner in controlling illegal demands of bribes by the Officers working in the Division. These Articles of Charges were based on the hearsay complaint of one P.S.N.Sastry sent through e-mail.
12.
To sustain charges of this nature, there should be some elementary proof of demand and acceptance of the alleged amounts by some person who had actually paid the amounts.
The Annexure IV of the charge memorandum does not disclose any witness other than the complainant P.S.N.Sastry and the individual who conducted the preliminary enquiry as the witnesses on whom the charges were sought to be sustained.
9
13.
Further, the enquiry report does not disclose any individual having been examined, including the witnesses cited in the charge memorandum. The conclusions in the enquiry report are based only on the explanations offered by the Petitioner which were not to the satisfaction of the Enquiry Officer. There was absolutely no evidence on record.
14.
None of the persons or members of the associations, who were said to have given the demanded amounts have given a complaint, nor have any of them deposed on such allegations in the preliminary enquiry report or in the enquiry report. There is no mention of any recovery of amounts from the Officers/staff or their kith and kin working in Visakhapatnam-II Division nor their Bank accounts to establish the substratum of the Articles of Charges I, II and IV against the Petitioner.
15.
The enquiry report submitted was common for the Petitioner, P. Jayashankar, Deputy Commissioner (ST), P.
Prashant Kumar (GSTO), and Dharampal (AEO) i.e., the individuals other than the Petitioner who were specifically named in the complaint of P.S.N.Sastry as having formed into a ring and collected huge bribes. The most startling aspect is that the
10
charges of collection of bribes against those Officers were held not proved as there was no evidence. In spite of the finding in the common enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer still held the Petitioner guilty of supervisory failure, when the Officers who were alleged to have indulged in collection of bribes were exonerated.
16.
In the absence of any oral or documentary proof to establish the substratum of the allegations, there is no basis for the Enquiry Officer to conclude that the charges are proved.
Though departmental enquiries are based on the preponderance of probability, even for coming to such a conclusion, there should be some evidence to link the delinquent. Though, it is a well known principle, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank1, at paragraph 16 are extracted below:- “16. It is fairly well settled that the approach and objective in criminal proceedings and the disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different. In the disciplinary proceedings the preliminary question is whether the employee is guilty of such conduct as would merit action against him, whereas in criminal proceedings the question is whether the offences registered against him are established and if established what
1 (2003) 3 SCC 583
11
sentence should be imposed upon him. The standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial are conceptually different. (See State of Rajasthan v. B.K.
Meena ((1996) 6 scc 417)). In case of disciplinary enquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application. The doctrine of “proof beyond doubt” has no application. Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct.”
17.
In the absence of any oral evidence and findings of the Enquiry Officer on the subordinate to the Petitioner regarding allegations of collection of bribes, there is no basis to make Petitioner guilty of supervisory failure and findings on the Articles of Charges I, II and IV cannot sustain.
18.
Coming to Articles of Charge III, the same is not supported in the statement of imputation, nor is there a reference as to which Officer was permitted to work in the Office even after issuance of the transfer orders. Be that as it may, the Enquiry Officer holds the Petitioner guilty of this charge vis-a-vis one Prashant Kumar. The said Prashant Kumar in his deposition to the Enquiry Officer had stated that on transfer to Anakapalli Circle, he had reported to duty on 01.08.2022. On request of the
12
Petitioner, being the head of the newly formed division, he assisted Officers and staff of the Viskhapatnam-II division.
19.
Coming to Articles of Charge III, the Petitioner in his explanation had stated that as the Visakhapatnam-II Division was newly formed, a temporary job chart was given to facilitate the workflow since 90% of the staff have transferred during the general transfer in July, 2022. In view of this, certain Staff of the Division were called upon to help sort out files or hand over inspection/DMU files to Circle Officers (i.e., reallocation of Audit and Inspection tasks to the concerned circle Office based on the location of the Taxpayers). It is stated that the department itself had allowed deputations of certain individuals in view of administrative exigency to ensure effective functioning of the Office and the deputations were subsequently cancelled vide CCST’s Ref.No.DXZ(2)/93/2022-5, dated 29.10.2022. It is stated that a detailed Office Order Job Chart was issued on 29.09.2022, and the name of P. Prasanth Kumar, GSTO, was not mentioned in the said job chart. It is stated that on 29.09.2022 and 31.10.2022, the Petitioner had directed all the Circle Officers in the temporary job chart given in the month of August, 2022 to submit copies to check the work allotted to their staff. This
13
explanation of deputation was not even referred to in the impugned order.
20.
The Anakapalli Circle comes under Visakhapatnam-II Division and the services of the said individual were being utilised for discharge of official work by the head of the division i.e., Petitioner. It is not clear as to how this is to be construed as a misconduct, as the services were utilised for official purposes in the same division. It is not the case of the Respondents that Prashant Kumar was made to work against the interests of the department or that any pressing work in Anakapalli Circle was affected, causing loss of revenue in the said circle.
21.
In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order G.O.Rt.No.126, dated 17.02.2025 is set aside. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.
___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 08.09.2026 KLP