T. Ramesh Kumar Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the G.O.Rt.No.593, Dt. 27-09-2021 and consequential G.O Rt.No.909, Dt.05.10.2023, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same….”
Heard Sri M.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer on 07.07.2000 by way of direct recruitment and promoted to the post of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 06.02.2006 and further promoted as Commercial Tax Officer in the year 2016. Now, the petitioner is working as Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (GST), Paderu Circle, Visakhapatnam Division-II. While he was working as Commercial Tax Officer, Circle-3, Kurnool, based on the complaint made by one Ch.Umapathi to the Anti-corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities through email on 16.08.2015 stating that he dispatched goods from Tadipatri on 14.08.2015 through a vehicle bearing No.MH 17 BD 7848 and the petitioner has stopped the said vehicle on 15.08.2015 and demanded a bribe of Rs.40,000/-. Based on the said complaint, the ACB was conducted an enquiry and a report was submitted to the Director General, ACB on 01.11.2017. Accordingly, a case was registered on 18.12.2017. Based on the enquiry report, the DG, ACB has sought the 1st respondent-State to grant sanction for prosecution of the petitioner. The same was considered and rejected vide G.O.Rt.No.976, dated 25.09.2019, with the following observations:
“4. And whereas, the Government, after careful consideration and thorough examination of the entire material/documents/records including Viz., copy of complaint, (e-mail) dt. 16.08.2015; copy of complaint dt.18.12.2017; copy of FIR; copies of statements of witnesses, copies of reports of Toll Plaza, Amakathadu and Pullur; copies of reports of Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Anantapur and Hyderabad; copy of invoice and e-waybill dt., 14.08.2015; representation of the Accused Officer; final report of the Anti Corruption Bureau and other material placed before the Government, have concluded that the documentary evidence of Toll Plaza and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Anantapur and Hyderabad reports proved that vehicle bearing No.MH 17 AG 7848 has crossed the AP - Telangana border and entered into the State of Telangana on 14.08.2015 at 21.18.07 itself and same lorry is not in the State of A.P on 15.08.2015 and therefore, the accused officer / Commercial tax Officer cannot stop and check the same lorry on 15.08.2015 at Kurnool transporting goods covered by same bills, and therefore, the question of demand and acceptance does not arise and further, it is observed that the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau in the Final Report, has not mentioned anywhere that the amount was recovered from the Accused Officer but stated that the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- was given to the Accused Officer by Sri Satyanarayana, Brother-in-Law of the Complainant, on 16.08.2015 and that, in the facts and circumstances, there are no adequate grounds for justifying to prosecute Accused Officer/ Sri T. Ramesh Kumar Reddy, Commercial Tax Officer in the court of law.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, do hereby refuse to grant sanction for the prosecution of the said Accused Officer Sri. T. Ramesh Kumar Reddy, the then Commercial Tax Officer-III, Kurnool for the aforesaid offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for any other cognate offences punishable under other provisions of law for the time being in force in respect of the acts aforesaid and for taking cognizance of the said offences by the court of competent juri iction.
Accordingly, Government hereby order for entrusting the case to Departmental enquiry instead of granting permission to prosecute the Accused Officer Sri T.Ramesh Kumar Reddy, the then Commercial Tax Officer-III, Kurnool.”
Consequent to the said orders, the 1st respondent has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.593, dated 27.09.2021, with the following charge: “That the Government Servant in abuse of his official position demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- from Sri N.Satyanarayana of Kurnool Town who is brother-in-law of the complainant Sri Chandra Umapathi on 16.08.2015 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing the official favour “for releasing lorry bearing No.MH-17-AG- 7848 loaded with 20 pieces of granite slabs without way bill along with permitted Kadapa slabs stones.”
Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
Considering the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, this Court has granted a stay on 02.05.2024 for a limited period. Subsequent to the notice, the respondents have filed counter.
Sri M.Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that when the ACB authorities have sought sanction, the 1st respondent has considered the report and rejected its findings stating that the petitioner could not have stopped the said lorry during the check period on 15.08.2015 at Kurnool, as the said vehicle has already crossed the Andhra Pradesh State border and entered into the State of Telangana on 14.08.2015. Hence, the question of stopping the vehicle on 15.08.2015 by the petitioner does not arise and accordingly, rejected the grant of sanction. Once the State has considered and rejected the findings of the ACB authorities stating that the vehicle has already been left the border of the State of Andhra Pradesh on 14.08.2015 itself, the allegations made in the complaint and the report of the ACB authorities that the petitioner stopped the vehicle on 15.08.2015 at Kurnool border and then the question of entrusting the case for departmental enquiry are contrary to the findings of the facts mentioned in G.O.Rt.No.976, dated 25.09.2019. On perusal of the charge framed in the impugned G.O.Rt.No.593, dated 27.09.2021, it is evident that it is only with regard to acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- from the brother-in-law of the complainant pertaining to the lorry bearing No.MH-17-AG-7848. When the Government itself has already considered and rejected for sanction stating that it was not possible for the petitioner to stop the vehicle on 15.08.2015, again initiation of disciplinary proceedings for the very same incident is nothing but harassment of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further relied on the Government Memo dated 21.09.2025, wherein the ACB authorities have once again requested the State for sanction of prosecution based on the general directions issued by the High Court in Crl.M.P.No.934 of 2022 and the same was considered and once again rejected with the following observations:
“5. Whereas, in the reference 4th cited, now the DG, ACB has stated as per the directions of Honourable High Court of A.P., dt. 12.01.2024, the Chief Secretary to Government of A.P., Velagapudi, while filing counter dt.07.03.2024 in Crl.MP.No. 934/2022 before the Honourable High Court of A.P., informed that, "the cause of action available to the Government is only to either grant or refuse sanction u/s 19 of the PC Act, 1988. The alternative initiation of disciplinary proceedings cannot be substituted for the criminal proceedings. The continuation of criminal proceedings will have to be decided on careful perusal of the matter u/s.19 of the PC Act, 1988 and sanction is either to be granted or refused on the touch stone of the merits of the case, without factoring in any other alternative recourse to disciplinary proceedings such as the departmental proceedings." It is also made clear that any initiation of departmental proceedings can be in addition to the continuance of criminal prosecution and not as an alternative thereof. Further, the affidavit mentioned that the state shall accordingly consider the proposals for grant of sanctions and in such cases where sanction would be granted, appropriate applications in the competent Court/Hon'ble High Court shall be filed by the Investigating Agency to re-open the prosecutions which are closed.
The DG, ACB has further stated that since, there are no specific reasons /speaking order for rejection nor there is any clear rejection / denial in the above G.O., and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court, this is a fit case to accord sanction for the prosecution of AO Sri T.Ramesh Kumar Reddy, former Commercial Tax Officer-III, Kurnool and again requested to accord sanction for prosecution of the AO, so that further necessary action will be initiated in accordance with law.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, Government after careful examination matter, have decided to reject the proposals of the DG, ACB reconsideration for prosecution of the AQ Sri T.Ramesh Kumar Reddy, CTO- III, Kurnool, as the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau in its present letter dt. 24.04.2024, did not mention about any fresh or new material/evidences and this case is not covered by the Hon'ble A.R. High Court directions for review / reconsideration.”
In fact, in paragraph No.5 of the said memo, it is clearly stated that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings cannot be substituted for the criminal proceedings and the continuation of criminal proceedings will have to be decided on careful perusal of the matter under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sanction is either to be granted or refused on the touch stone of the merits of the case. It is made clear that any initiation of departmental proceedings can be in addition to the continuance of the criminal prosecution and not as an alternative thereof. Despite the said request made by the ACB, the same has been rejected once again based on the factual situation. Once a criminal prosecution is rejected, the respondents ought not to have continued the disciplinary proceedings. The fact was reconsidered and rejected stating that when the vehicle has already been left the border of State of Andhra Pradesh, there is no necessity to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The charge memo, which was initiated against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.593, dated 27.09.2021, is only to frustrate the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, he requested to set aside the same.
Reply to the said contentions, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Government felt that the departmental enquiry is enough to know the truth into the allegation of bribe since the ACB officials have not recovered any bribe from the petitioner on the spot. The department wants to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner and just because of rejection of criminal prosecution does not amount to clear acquittal of the petitioner. When there are allegations, the department is entitled to enquire into the allegations as per procedure contemplated under Rule 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short, „the CCA Rules‟). He further submitted that the petitioner is habitually involved in the corrupted practices and in fact there are two other ACB cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, the charge framed against the petitioner is in accordance with Rule 20 of the CCA Rules.
Learned Senior Counsel has heavily relied on the findings given in G.O.Rt.No.976, dated 25.09.2019, wherein the Government has considered the entire factual aspects and rejected the findings of the ACB authorities and categorically held that the vehicle has already been crossed the border of State of Andhra Pradesh and entered into the State of Telangana on 14.08.2015 itself. Moreover, it has also been observed that no amounts have been recovered from the petitioner on the spot. In the said circumstances, just because of enormous complaint made by the authorities, the respondents ought not to have initiated disciplinary proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.593, dated 27.09.2021 against the petitioner.
Considering the submissions and on perusal of the rejection of prosecution vide G.O.Rt.No.976, dated 25.09.2019 and also the consequential rejection in Government Memo dated 21.09.2025, this Court is of the opinion that when the respondent authorities have considered the facts in full sense and rejected the prosecution twice, there is no necessity to further enquire into the matter. Based on the findings given in the above two Government Orders, the impugned proceedings issued vide G.O.Rt.No.593, dated 27.09.2021 and the consequential proceedings issued vide G.O.Rt.No.909, dated 05.10.2023, are set aside.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 01.04.2026 Ivd THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.9047 of 2024
Dated: 01.04.2026
Ivd
Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.