Common Judgment:

P. Sam Koshy, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the Advocate General for the appellants; and Mr. Ravi Kondaveeti, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The instant Writ Appeal is one which has been preferred by the State challenging the order passed by the learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.9156 of 2019, decided on 17.10.2023.

3. The instant appeal has been filed with a delay of 291 days. I.A.No.1 of 2024 is an application filed by none other than the rank of a Director, Adult Education Department, T.G., Hyderabad seeking condonation of this 291 days’delay.

4. It would be necessary at this juncture to take note of the relevant contents of I.A.No.1 of 2024, which for ready reference is reproduced hereunder:

               “5. It is humbly submitted that the order in the present writ petition is contrary to the settled principles of law and liable to be appealed on the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of the appeal, and the same may be treated as part and parcel of the present Writ Appeal.

               6. It is humbly submitted that the respondent herein, has filed C.C.No.350 0f 2024, seeking to punish these Appellants for non-compliance of the orders The Appellants have utmost regard and respect for the order of the Hon'ble High Court and same could not be implemented for the reasons stated in the affidavit. Unless, the Hon'ble High Court is pleased to suspend the order, the Appellants will be put into irreparable loss and damage.

               7. It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to condone the delay if any, caused in this regard for filing this Writ Appeal please. The reason of the delay is not wilful.

               8. For the reasons stated above, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay of days in filing the Writ Appeal against the order dated. 17.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.9156/2019 and pass Such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

5. Subsequently, the same officer had filed another application supplementing the earlier application seeking for condonation of delay. In the supplementary affidavit, the following contentions were made explaining the delay caused:

               “2) It is humbly submitted that the Order of the Hon'ble High Court, Telangana, Hyderabad was submitted by the Petitioner on 25.10.2023. Most of the Staff were drafted for election duties (Copies of Proceedings annexed)

               3) It is humbly submitted that after the elections concluded, the Director of Adult Education, TG., Hyderabad, have requested the Government seeking a direction for further course of action vide this office Lr.Rc.No.387/A/DAE/TS/2019, dt.13.12.2023.

               4) It is humbly submitted that in response to this office letter, the Government vide Memo.No.10894/SE.Prog.1/A2/2023, dt.23.01.2024 instructed the Director of Adult Education, TG., Hyderabad to address the Government Pleader concerned to furnish his considered opinion on the Orders, dt.17.10.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

               5) It is humbly submitted that accordingly, the Government Pleader for Services. I, Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad was addressed to issue his Considered opinion in this Case vide this office Lr.Rc.No.387/A/DAE/TS/2019, dt.29.01.2024.

               6) It is humbly submitted that as the matter required immediate attention, a letter was addressed to the Additional Advocate Telangana, Hyderabad General, Hon'ble High Court of Telangana on 08.02.2024 requesting to file Writ Appeal along with supporting documents in the Case in the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana. Hyderabad challenging the Orders, dt. 17.10.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad vide Lr.Rc.No.387/A/DAE/TS /2019, dt.08.02.2024.

               7)It is humbly submitted that meanwhile, Sri A.Sudhakar filed a Contempt Case No.350 of 2024 seeking to punish the Petitioners for non-compliance of the Orders, dt.17.10.2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana on 19.02.2024 and the Contempt Notice was issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad on 23.02.2024 received by this office on 07.03.2024.

               8) It is humbly submitted that meanwhile, as per the advice of the Office of the Additional Advocate General, Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad, the Respondent No.1 submitted a Review Petition in the Case vide this office Lr. Rc.No.387/A/DAE/TS/2019, dt.21.03.2024. The Review Petition was filed on 28.03.2024 and numbered as I.A.No.1 of 2024. The same came to be dismissed on 09.07.2024. Certified copy was applied on 03.08.2024 and received on 13.09.2024.

               9)It is humbly submitted that a letter was addressed to the Office of the Additional Advocate General, Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad, requesting to file Writ Appeal in the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad vide this office Lr. Rc.No.387/A/DAE/TS/ 2019, dt.08.08.2024.

               10) It is humbly submitted that as there is delay in obtaining the copy of Order in review, Writ Appeal was filed with delay without the copy of Order in review.

               11) It is humbly submitted that due to the above reasons, a delay of (291) days occurred in filing the Writ Appeal. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that the delay caused is only due to administrative reasons that are beyond our control only but not with any willful intention.

               12) It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the Writ Appeal and permit to file a copy of the Orders in review in W.P.9156/2019, dt.09.07.2024.”

6. Learned Special Government Pleader referred to the impugned order holding it to be not in accordance with law and is liable to be set aside. It was contended that even if the impugned order was to be set aside by the learned Single Bench, the matter ought to had been thereafter remitted back to the State Government with a liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the impugned enquiry was held to be bad in law. Thus, prayed for condonation of delay and to entertain the writ appeal and decide the same on merits.

7. Now what needs to be appreciated at this juncture is the fact that in the supplementary affidavit which the State has filed, there is no doubt as regards the State being aware of the order passed by the learned Single Bench, at the first instance, on 17.10.2023. Further, the first ground raised explaining the delay seems to be totally baseless one - that of the staff of the appellant establishment being deputed for election duty. The second ground also seems to be the time that got consumed in obtaining the opinion from the Government Pleader first and later from the Additional Advocate General.

8. Even the supplementary affidavit which the State has filed explaining the delay does not provide details for each days’ delay except for the routine reasons those are assigned by the State Government in the course of filing condone delay petitions. From the very same affidavit, there is also another admission on the part of the State that the respondent / writ petitioner meanwhile resorted to the contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the impugned order dated 17.10.2023, vide C.C.No.350 of 2024, wherein notices were issued and appellants were also duly served with the notices.

9. This averment of the State in the affidavit makes it amply clear that it is only after the notice in the contempt case was served upon the State it woke up from the slumber at least to initiate steps to file Writ Appeal. However, even if the averments in the supplementary affidavit is to be believed, the notice in the contempt case was duly served on 07.03.2024, and in spite of that the present Writ Appeal could be filed only on 02.09.2024 i.e. after 6 months’ time from the time the notice of contempt got served.

10. Yet another aspect which further needs appreciation is the fact that it is only after the service of notice in the contempt case that the State thought of filing a review petition and they did so on 28.03.2024 vide Review I.A.No.1 of 2024. However, the said Review I.A. too ultimately got dismissed on 09.07.2024. Further, meanwhile the instant Writ Appeal itself was filed on 02.09.2024 without the certified copy of the order in Review I.A.

11. Now to see whether the State has an arguable point worth entertaining the Writ Appeal, we need to look into the facts of the case as was agitated before the learned Single Bench.

12. The facts in brief are that the writ petitioner / respondent initially was appointed as a Statistical Assistant in the office of the Deputy Director, Adult Education, at Adilabad District. Later, he got promoted to the post of Assistant Project Officer on 05.08.2015 and was posted at Manthani Division. While he was posted at Manthani Division, a complaint was made before the Lokayuktha alleging that while functioning as Statistical Assistant, the writ petitioner is said to have misappropriated an amount of Rs.7,17,940/- by preparing bogus and forged bills / vouchers in connection with the purchase of certain items at the Zilla Lok Siksha Samiti, Khammam.

13. The writ petitioner was issued with a charge memo on 11.12.2015. Later on an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 12.09.2016; an enquiry report was submitted on 02.01.2017, the writ petitioner was served with a show cause notice to which he gave his explanation on 12.02.2017 and finally, the order of imposing major punishment was passed on 19.05.2017. The punishment that was imposed was withholding of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect along with recovery of Rs.3,58,970/- i.e. 50% of the alleged misappropriated amount. The departmental appeal which the writ petitioner had preferred was also rejected and the punishment order stood confirmed vide order dated 07.08.2019.

14. The factual matrix which are glaringly visible from the enquiry proceedings are:-

               a) That the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 02.01.2017 concludes the enquiry insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned in just one paragraph, which for ready reference is reproduced hereunder:

               “In regard to A.Sudhakar, former Statistical Asst, O/o DDAE, Kharnmarn. Article-(01) An amount of Rs.7,17,940/- found to be misappropriated by him Dy preparing bogus and forged Bills/Vouchers of certain itemns in Zilla Lok Siksha Samithi, Khammam.

               REPLY: In his deposition Sri A.Sudhakar, Statistical Assistant stated as "All the Dite were collected/received from owners of the firm and given the cheques to tne and also enclosed his reply on points 06 and 07.

               Findings: Sri A.Sudhakar, Statistical Assistant is in key possession of the office after DDAE failed to bring the facts into the notice of DDAE which prove his negligence and involvement in misappropriation of funds. He is the person to obtain note approval of DDAE and after circulate to the DRDA/ District Collector. He has not maintained stock register and stock issued register and not followed the procedure of issuing sanction proceedings and issue of purchase orders which is against A.P. Financial code on accounts. It is evident that Sri A. Sudhakar has not properly accounted before bringing to the notice of DDAE, has deliberately failed in discharging his primary duties, which ultimately lead to a big mess. Further Mandal Co-Ordinators also complained of non receipt of stationary material even after signing on the statements in advance in token of having received stationary. For which he has not shown any proof of issuing registers/Acquittances.”

               b) That the disciplinary proceeding for a major misconduct stood concluded only on the basis of the response that the writ petitioner had given to the charge memo. Not a single witness appears to have been examined by the Department to prove the allegations.

               c) The reply given to the articles of charge No.1 itself would show that the writ petitioner has denied the charge and had also stated that the alleged vouchers and receipts were in fact obtained from the actual owners who, in turn, were given with the cheques those were released against the purchase from their respective shops. If, according to the writ petitioner he had made the payment through cheque, it would had been very easy for the Department to have got it verified whether the cheque was in fact served upon the so-called shopkeepers and whether the cheques were encashed by those very persons or not.

               d) As regards the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, if those findings are to be even accepted on its face value, it would only amount to procedural irregularity and which cannot be brought within the purview of misappropriation of funds on the basis of bogus and forged bills / vouchers.

               e) There even does not seem to be a preliminary enquiry available to ascertain whether the items which are said to have been purchased on the basis of forged bills / vouchers were in fact available at the Zilla Lok Siksha Samiti, Khammam or not. Secondly, the Department also ought to have got verified from the respective shops as to whether they had, in fact, made any such supply to Zilla Lok Siksha Samiti, Khammam. Lastly, it also could had been verified whether the payments which were made through cheques were in fact received by the shopkeepers and whether such payments were reflected in the shopkeepers’ books of accounts.

15. This being the manner in which the departmental enquiry was conducted, particularly against the instant writ petitioner, this Bench does not have any hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the finding arrived at by the learned Single Bench is proper, legal and justified and does not warrant any interference. Yet another reason why this Bench is reluctant to interdict the impugned order is that the original punishment order itself being only to the extent of withholding one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. If it was a case where the act of misappropriation of over Rs.7 lakhs by a delinquent employee or officer, under no circumstances can the punishment imposed accepted to be a justified punishment, thereby letting go off the writ petitioner to remain in the Department.

16. The argument of the learned Special Government Pleader would had been acceptable or befitting had the punishment been that of termination from service and where the finding of the learned Single Bench would had been to impose another lesser punishment other than the punishment of termination. Whereas, in the instant case the punishment itself was that of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, which itself forces this Bench to infer that even the State was not sure insofar the role of the writ petitioner in the so-called misappropriation of funds.

17. Since we do not find any substantial merit in the case of the appellants, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 291 days which has occurred in filing of the instant Writ Appeal. I.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking condonation of this delay of 291 days stand rejected and, as a consequence, the instant W.A.No.1092 of 2024 also stands rejected affirming the order passed by the learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.9156 of 2019.

18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.