[ad_1]
Petitioner questions the order dated 18.01.2017 of
the 2nd respondent whereby and whereunder he was dismissed
from service with immediate effect together with recovery of
Rs.10,63,180/- for the irregularities committed by him in
implementation of Indiramma Housing Programme at
Basheerbad (M) of Ranga Reddy District.
2. The crisp case of petitioner is that he was issued
charge memo dated 24.09.2010 alleging that he released
payment of Rs.6,58,210/- to 30 beneficiaries towards old
houses; released payment of Rs.10,74,620/- to 62 beneficiaries
without grounding the construction of houses which is in
violation of Rule 20(4) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (for short,
‘the Rules’). It is stated, the charge memo had not mentioned
the names of proposed witnesses. He submitted representation
dated 21.12.2010 to the 5th respondent to furnish the details of
cases, such as names of beneficiaries, village and the amount
paid to them. The 5th respondent furnished certain information.
He submitted written defense statement on 06.06.2011 to the
3rd respondent clearly stating the payments made, details of
stages of houses, etcetera. According to petitioner, the Enquiry
Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule
20(10)(a) of the Rules, as per which, oral and documentary
evidence by which articles of charges are proposed to be proved
shall be produced by or on behalf of disciplinary authority.
Based on such a report, the 3rd respondent vide Memo dated
17.05.2012 for which, petitioner submitted explanation on
06.06.2012 stating that on the instructions and report of MHOs.
only, he generated payment release orders; all the payments
were transferred to the individual beneficiaries’ accounts and no
beneficiary disputed acknowledgment of payment, hence, fixing
responsibility on him is not correct.
[ad_2]
Source link