Table of Contents(toc)
1. Introductory para indicating appointment and dates
Ex-01: “I, Sri X, Superintendent, O/o the District Collector, was appointed as Inquiry Authority vide Proceedings No. 1234/2023, dated 01.06.2023 by the District Collector to inquire into the charges framed against Sri Y, Senior Assistant. The preliminary hearing was held on 15.06.2023, regular hearings on 05.07.2023, 12.07.2023, and 19.07.2023. The inquiry concluded on 02.08.2023.”
Ex-02: “Under Rule 20(2) of APCS CCA Rules, 1991, I was appointed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes vide Memo No. 456/2023, dated 01.05.2023. The Charged Officer, Sri Z, Junior Assistant, participated in all hearings. The oral evidence was recorded on six dates between 01.06.2023 and 15.07.2023.”
Ex-03: “I was appointed as Inquiry Officer vide GO Rt. No. 789, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dated 15.03.2023, in respect of charges against Sri A, Mandal Revenue Officer. The inquiry was held on 10 dates between 01.04.2023 and 30.06.2023. The Charged Officer was assisted by Sri B, Retired Government Servant, as Defence Assistant.”
2. Charges that were framed
Ex-01: “The following three charges were framed against
Sri Y, Senior Assistant:
Charge I: That Sri Y remained absent from duty without
sanction for 45 days from 01/01/2023 to 14/02/2023, violating Rule 3(1) of
Conduct Rules.
Charge II: That Sri Y submitted a false medical
certificate to justify his absence.
Charge III: That Sri Y failed to hand over charge to the relieving officer before proceeding on leave.”
Ex-02: “Charge I: Violation of Rule 9 of Conduct Rules
- Sri A acquired immovable property worth Rs. 50,00,000/- without prior
intimation to the Competent Authority.
Charge II: Sri A failed to submit Annual Property Statement for the year 2022 as required under Rule 9(7) of Conduct Rules.”
Ex-03: “The articles of charge against Sri Z, Junior
Assistant:
Article I - Misappropriation of Government funds by
falsifying contingent bills;
Article II - Forging signatures of the Gazetted
Officer on the bills;
Article III - Destruction of official records to conceal the fraud.”
3. Brief statement of the case of disciplinary authority
Ex-01: “The case of the Disciplinary Authority is that Sri Y, Senior Assistant, was entrusted with maintenance of the contingent register and disbursement of imprest amount. Between January and March 2023, he submitted 12 bills totalling Rs. 2,50,000/- without proper vouchers. Audit revealed that the bills were fictitious and the amount was misappropriated.”
Ex-02: “The Disciplinary Authority alleges that Sri A acquired a house property at Hyderabad in the name of his wife without prior intimation to the Competent Authority as required under Rule 9(1) of the Conduct Rules. The property was valued at Rs. 65,00,000/- in the registration documents.”
Ex-03: “The case is that Sri Z, while working as Junior Assistant at the Sub-Treasury, facilitated fraudulent withdrawal of Government funds by creating fictitious entries in the cash book and misappropriating the amounts between January 2022 and December 2022.”
4. Brief statement of facts and documents admitted
Ex-01: “The Charged Officer admitted the fact that he was absent from duty from 01.01.2023 to 14.02.2023. He admitted the genuineness of the attendance register (Document No. 1) and the leave register (Document No. 2). These documents were taken on record without formal proof.”
Ex-02: “Sri A admitted that he had purchased the property at Hyderabad. He admitted the genuineness of the sale deed (Document No. 5) and the registration certificate (Document No. 6). However, he disputed the value mentioned in the documents.”
Ex-03: “The Charged Officer admitted the genuineness of documents listed at SI. Nos. 1 to 10, including the cash book and the contingent register. These were marked as PE-1 to PE-10 without calling the witnesses to prove them.”
5. Brief statement of explanation of the Government Servant
Ex-01: “In his written statement of defence, Sri Y stated that he was suffering from severe illness and was under treatment at the Government Hospital. He claimed that he had submitted a leave application through the office peon, which was misplaced. He submitted a medical certificate issued by a private doctor.”
Ex-02: “Sri A’s defence is that the property was purchased by his wife from her personal savings and income from her ancestral property. He claimed that he had no involvement in the transaction and had no obligation to report it.”
Ex-03: “The Charged Officer contended that the contingent bills were prepared by the head clerk and he only signed them without verifying the details. He claimed that he was not aware of the misappropriation and that the head clerk had misused his trust.”
6. Assessment of evidence in respect of each point
Ex-01: “On Charge I - Unauthorised absence: The attendance register (PE-1) shows absence from 01.01.2023 to 14.02.2023. The leave register (PE-2) shows no leave sanctioned for this period. The Charged Officer admitted these documents. The medical certificate submitted by him (DE-1) is from a private doctor who was not examined as a witness. In the absence of independent evidence of hospitalization, the absence is held as unauthorized.”
Ex-02: “On Charge II - Acquisition of property: The sale deed (PE-5) shows the property in the name of the Charged Officer’s wife. Bank statements (PE-6 to PE-8) show deposits from the Charged Officer’s salary account. The wife was not examined as a witness. The Charged Officer's explanation lacks corroboration. The charge is proved.”
Ex-03: “On Charge I - Misappropriation: The contingent register (PE-1 to PE-5) shows payments made without vouchers. Audit report (PE-6) confirms irregularity. State Witness No. 3 (Auditor) testified about the discrepancies. The Charged Officer’s defence that he signed without verification is not acceptable as he was responsible for verifying bills. The charge is proved.”
7. Finding on each charge - no recommendation about punishment
Ex-01: “On Charge I, the evidence is clear and uncontroverted. The Charged Officer failed to provide proper justification for his absence. The attendance register and leave register are conclusive. Therefore, Charge I is held as PROVED.”
Ex-02: “On Charge II, the Charged Officer has not been able to satisfactorily explain the source of funds for the property acquisition. The bank statements are consistent with his income. The charge is held as PROVED.”
Ex-03: “On Charge III, the evidence is insufficient.
The Charged Officer’s explanation appears reasonable. There is no witness to
confirm the destruction of records. Therefore, Charge III is held as NOT
PROVED.”
