To

The Hon’ble Chief Minister

Government of Andhra Pradesh
Secretariat ,
Amaravathi

Respected Sir,

Sub:- Allegation – Allegation of disproportionate assets case against

Sri M. V. Satyanarayana, A.E.(P.R.), Palakollu, W.G.Dist. -
Allegation of possession of disproportionate assets to the known
sources of income – implicated me in a fabricated case – registered
against me – in crime no. 4/RCA-EWG/2014- Elluru range –
conducted searches - added the properties of other income tax holders
– Request to examine and consider the facts on records and to drop
further action – Representation submitted – Regarding.

Ref: FIR No.4/RCA-EWG/2014 Dt.17-02-2014 Inspector Police

(ACB) Elluru range
***

I, M.V. Satyanarayana formerly Assistant Engineer (P.R), Palakollu, W.G.

Dist. and presently o/o. A.E.(P.R), PIU, Jangareddygudem, humbly submit the
following representation along with the documentary evidence in support of my
defence for consideration and to drop the fabricated case of disproportionate assets
which was filed in the reference cited.

The ulterior motive of the ACB officials to register the foisted case against me
I respectfully submit while I was working as Assistant Engineer (P.R),
Palakollu, W.G. Dist., the Inspector, ACB, Eluru Range registered a false case of
disproportionate assets case against me on 17.02.2014, reckoning the assets of the
myself, my wife, my son and other friends, those who are independent income-tax
assesses and also having their own sources of income by way of their respective

1
professions to a tune of Rs.1,36,00,000/-. The ACB Inspector, conducted searches
in my residence and the residential premises of the above persons. During the
course of searches since no incriminating material regarding disproportionate
assets identified by the I.O and no incriminating documents about disproportionate
assets noticed by him. He had an apprehension that I will file defaming case
against him, that is why, the I.O hatched up a plan to over come from his illegal
action. He added the properties of others in terms of Rule 2(V) of the A.P.C.S
Conduct Rules’ 1964 and reckoned all the properties as of mine. Further, the
inspector issued a notice on 13.02.2015 after a lapse of nearly 1 year for an amount
of Rs.1,59,56,006/- calling for my explanation by restricting 15 days time. In
response to the reply filed by me along with the documentary evidence, the I.O.
considered and decreased the said to have been the value of disproportionate assets
to a tune of Rs.89,00,000/- approx. Conversely the DG, ACB again enhanced the
figure keeping aside the I.O’s version and arrived at a figure of Rs.1,00,60,000/-
approx. and send a report to the government for sanction of permission for
prosecution. It is self explanatory that the act of the ACB Department is clearly
indicates that he implicated me in a false case of disproportionate assets.
Further, I humbly submit that during the course of searches in my
residential premises or in my official premises, he did not find out any
incriminating documents of unaccounted movable or immovable properties owned
by me or the properties relates to others. Since my assets are within the limits of
my sources of income and also I have already intimated to the Department about
the acquisition of property in accordance with the A.P.C.S Conduct Rules 1964. It
is obvious that the I.O registered this false case and implicated me with ulterior
motive by adding the properties of others with bloated figures to make out a
disproportionate assets case. The ACB sleuths are in habituate to implicate the
officials those who are not arriving at their behest through their henchmen then

2
they misuse the powers vested with them and in that scenario my case is a best
exemplary. However, leaving all the facts aside, the I.O registered the false case
against me by adding the properties/ expenditure/ income of my wife, my son and
other friends as of mine, as detailed below.

ASSETS
S. Names of Asset Assets S.Nos Value as per Actual Value Difference
No Holders ACB as per the
records of
the AO
1 M.V 1,2,3,8,9,10,14, 1,54,57,334/- 46,68,625/- Rs.40,14,395/-
Satyanarayana 15,16,22,23,24, (the I.O did ( the I.O shown
(A.O) 25,27,28,29,30, not separated the bloated figures
33,34,35 and 37 value of the to arrive the
2 M. Tirupathi 4,5,6,7,11,12,13, properties of 64,14,314/- fabricated case)
Kumari (Wife) 17 to 21, 26,31, the A.O wife
32,36 and son)
3 M. Jithendra NIL NIL 3,60,000/-
(Son)
TOTAL 1,54,57,334/- 1,14,42,939/- Rs.40,14,395/-

EXPENDITURE
S. Names of Asset Holders Value as per ACB Actual Value as per the
No records of the AO
.
1 M.V Satyanarayana (A.O) 72,48,520/- 38,85,000
(the I.O did not
2 M. Tirupathi Kumari (Wife) separated the 21,16,284
expenditure of
A.O and his wife)
3 M. Jithendra (Son) NIL NIL
TOTAL 72,48,520/- 60,01,284

3
 INCOME

S. Names of Asset Holders Value as per ACB Actual Receipts as

No per the records of the
AO
1 M.V Satyanarayana (A.O) 67,49,848/- 1,16,28,748/-
2 M. Tirupathi Kumari (Wife) NIL 65,52,160/-
3 M. Jithendra (Son) NIL 3,60,000/-
TOTAL 1,85,40,908/-

I respectfully submit that the I.O shown in the Annexure of income

of myself as Rs.67,49,848/- adding the income of my wife and son instead of the
income owned by me of Rs.1,16,28,748/-. Further regarding my wife, the I.O
shown her income as Rs.NIL, instead of Rs.65,52,160/- as regards to my son
income his total savings are at about Rs.27,00,000/- out of which an amount of
Rs.23,38,682/- was transferred to the joint account with my son so as to enable us
to clear the educational loan which was taken previously before placement of the
employment in USA. It clearly shows that the I.O added the properties of my
family members those who had independent income sources. But, leaving all
legalized income aside, the I.O reckoned the values of their properties as of my
properties to fabricate a false disproportionate assets case against me.
Incidentally, I submit as per rule 2-V of the APCS Conduct Rules,
1964 my wife, my son and other friends does not fall within the frame work of the
said rule, as they are having their own sources of their income and they are not
dependents on me. They are living separately in their own houses owned by them
from their legal income. Further, they did not come under the purview of said rule,
wherein it is clearly mentioned that ‘who is no longer in any way depend upon
the employee’ and hence I am no way connected with the assets, income and
expenditure as acquired my wife and my son as long as they are lived separately.

4
 It is further submitted that I did not ignore the very existence of Rule
(9) of APCS Conduct Rules in acquiring and disposal of assets in my name and
my family members, thereby violation of Section 13(1)(e) of P.C.Act 1988; is
absolutely not correct. As a law abiding officer I have filed APR in my entire
tenure of service, since my entry into service. The proof of submission of said
APRs are very much available with me. Further, the question of acquisition and
disposal of assets by my wife and my son does not arise, as they were not come
under the purview of Rule(9) of APCS Conduct Rules as defined under Rule 2-V
of APCSC Rules 1964 as stated supraa. Therefore, I have not committed any
offence under section 13(1)(e) of PC Act 1988, hence it is proved that the I.O had
not applied his mind in interpreting the Rules and Acts under APCSC Rules 1964
in a broader prospective in taking the explanation given to the sub-section (1)(e) of
Section 13 of PC Act 1988.
It is pertinent to further submit that in terms of case reported in 1999
(1) SLJ P & H 188 between Pithambar Lal Goel Addl.District & Sessions
Judge State of Punjab & Haryana, where it was reiterated by he Division
Bench of the Hon’ble Court, the view taken by the Orissa High Court in the
case of Kalandi Charan Mallick Vs. Union of India & Others 1981(12) SLR
863 when the Government Servant has no interest in the transactions, that he
did not invest any amount of his income in such cases, income should be
taken separately and in that, in my case, the act of the I.O in reckoning of the
properties of my wife, my son and other friends as of mine, is violation of rules
and against to law.
Further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta
held in the case of Union of India Vs.Madanalla Ram 1997 (4) SLR Calcutta 191
Railway Service Conduct Rules 1966 do not make with obligatory on the part of
the employee to submit a declaration in respect of purchase of an asset made by his

5
adult son with the money provided by his grand father. According to the
observation of the Hon’ble Judicature, the fixed deposits made by my wife and my
son need not be intimated to the department by me. However in terms of Rule 9(1)
(7) &(8) of the APCS Conduct Rules, I have intimated the same to the department
from time to time.
I invite kind attention of the Hon’ble Authority that the Government
of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo No. 539/66-3 Dt. 22.04.1966 (GAD) Service (C)
Department forwarded to all the Departmental Heads including Collectors and
District Judges, a copy of the Memo of Ministry of Home Affairs vide O.M.No.
25/18/59-Ests (A) dated 28.08.1959 issued clarification regarding transaction of
immovable and movable properties by Government servants under the provisions
of CCS( C) Rules 1955. The Government of India through the said Memo
categorically mentioned at para IV Transactions as member of Hindu undivided
joint family do not require Governments prior permission. In such cases,
transactions in immovable property should be included in the annual property
returns and those immovable property should be reported to the prescribed
authority after completion or immediately after the Government servant comes to
know of them.
Further, Government India issued instructions through letter No.1.G1,
MHA, Lr.No.16/33/59-AIS(III) 9.9.1959 and letter dated 5/4/74 –AIS(III)
Dt.21.02.1974 stated that the properties acquired by members of family owned by
out of their own funds – not necessary to take permission/including annual
property returns.
Therefore, in my case I am no way interested about the purchase of
immovable/movable properties by my wife, my son and other friends though they
are happened to be my relatives and friends, but they are living separately,
depending upon their own source of income, in their owned houses. Hence, in

6
terms of the said Government Memos, the question of acquisition of movable and
immovable properties by them does not come under the purview of rule (9)
APCS(C) Rules 1964 and violation of Section 13(1)(e) of P.C Act 1988.

Further, it is relevant to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in criminal appeal No. 480/2002 judgment dated 7-12-2005 reported in
CRLJ 2006 ( The DSP, ACB, Chennai Vs. K. Inbasagaram, IAS, Secretary to
Health Department, Government of Tamilnadu in terms of which the properties
owned/ possessed/ declared by wife, father and mother cannot be reckoned as
belonging to me, and hence the act of the I.O in adding the properties of my
wife, father and mother is highly orbitrary, illegal and violation of Law.

In view of the legal positions observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of

India, it is imperative to make a mention and to invite the kind attention of the
Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj and Rural Development, that the I.O has added
the properties of my wife, son and others to jack up the bloated figures, to fabricate
this case duly not considering the facts on records and not taken into account of the
actual receipts of the A.O, my wife and my son.

In this connection, I submit the actual receipts/expenditure and assets of

myself, my wife and my son for your kind perusal along with documentary
evidence in support of my version and also explanatory statements on each item of
asset/expenditure and income, as under.

7
 ABSTRACT
S. Names of INCOME ASSETS + SURPLUS/
No Asset EXPENDITURE MINUS
Holders

1 2 3 4 5 (3-4)
1 M.V. Salary/ 49,98,651/- Assets :
Satyanaraya Agriculture/ 24,94,721/- S.No
na A.O. GPF / 23,38,682/- 1,2,3,8,9,
Amt rec from 10,14,15,
NRI son 16,22 to 25, 46,68,625/-
DA arrears/ 3,18,150/- 27 to 30,33,
Edul loan/ 8,22,000/- 34,35 and 37
House loan 6,56,544/- Expenditure 60,01,284/-
1,06,69,909/- (+)9,58,839/-
1,16,28,748/-
2 M. Tirupathi Poultry Income/ 19,27,627/- Investments 10,04,692/-
Kumari Gift frm mother 3,42,254/- Gold 6,88,000/-
(Wife of Agricultural 59,37,142/- Silver 62,840/-
A.O) --------------- Assets 64,14,313/-
82,07,023/- 81,69,845/- (+)37,178/-

3 M. Jithendra The son of the 26,98,834/- Apartment 3,60,000/-

( still A.O officiating (Tr. Amount Flat no. 204,
bachelor) as Software to Father Manasi
(Son of Engg.in USA, (A.O)) Heights,
A.O) getting salary (-)23,38,582/- Hyd.
=3,60,254/-

3,60,254/- 3,60,000/- (+) 254/-

4
TOTAL 9,96,271/-

In this regard, I further submit that as per the above factual statement made
from the recorded evidence that my wife and my son income, assets and
expenditure shows that there is surplus savings have to be in the hands of each
member.
I further submit that in my case, the I.O, ACB willfully reckoned the
properties by leaving the statutory/legalized income of my wife and my son to
fabricate a false case of disproportionate assets for his statistical purpose of making
me a scapegoat and implicated me in this false case.

8
 Further, it is pertinent to submit that my wife and my son are having their
own source of legalized income, they are assesses on the rolls of Income Tax
Department and also my son is a NRI getting Rs.3.75 lacs per month INR and the
same facts were also brought to the notice of the I.O during the course of searches
but the I.O heard in a deaf ear and registered a foisted case with blind eyes leaving
aside the Government guidelines issued in Memo No.623/SPL-C/A1/2008-1
dated 15.10.2008 wherein it was categorically instructed that “while assessing the
properties of other i.e., kith and kin and friends to the accused officer, the
investigating agency shall follow a specific and systematic approach while
assessing the properties of kith and kin, friends and others giving due weight age to
the details filed before the taxation authorities and also in the property returns
while calculating the disproportionate assets. Inspite of the said facts, the I.O kept
aside the instructions issued in the said Memo and included the properties of my
wife, my son and other friends as of my properties to arrive at a figure to show that
I have the assets more than the known source of income to implicate me in this
false case of disproportionate assets.

Further, the I.O alleged that I failed to file Annual Property Returns to the
Department in terms of rule 9(1) (7) and (8) of the APCS Conduct Rules is not
correct, that I had filed the returns to the concerned authorities under whose control
I was worked.
In this regard, it is imperative to mention that in registering a case of
disproportionate assets the I.O against a Government employee invokes the sub-
section (1)(e) of Section 13 of the PC Act which is as under:
“ if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time
during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public
servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or
property disproportionate to his known sources of income”

9
Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, “known sources of income” means
income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in
accordance with the provisions of any law, rule or orders for the time being
applicable to a public servant.

The static and settled view of the Legislation with broad prospective thought
in mentioning the explanation underneath to the Section 13(1)(e) of the PC Act is
that the known sources of Income received from any lawful sources and receipts
has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any Law, Rules or orders
for the time being applicable to a public servant. Therefore, the true spirit of the
explanation appended to the sub section (1) (e) is if the public servant intimate the
source of income in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders
means the said intimation to the Department is suffice in nature and do come as
lawful intimation.
In my present case, I myself and my family members fulfilled the conditions
in to-to in terms of the sub-section (1)(e) of Section 13 of PC Act in filing of I.T
returns/APRs duly disclosing the each and every lawful sources of income and
were also assessed by the Income Tax Department and also made intimation by me
to the Department from time to time, since the I.O is novice bent of mind, he failed
to understand the true spirit in taking the broad prospective of Law and hence
refused my version on record and not considered my version, and arrived at the
figures to jack up the figures in fabricating the dis-proportionate assets case.

It is further imperative to mention that the Government have been realized in

implicating the innocent government officers in this type of false cases, by the
Investigating Agency duly adding the assets and expenditure of the kith & kin,
relatives, friends and even though neighbors to jack up the assets and expenditure
value of the officers. To cut down menaces of false cases, the Government after

10
careful consideration laid down the guidelines through Memo No.
623/SPL-C/A1/2008-1 dated 15.10.2008 ,to filter out the cases to avoid false
prosecutions by the Investigating Agency, wherein it was categorically instructed
that “while assessing the properties of other i.e., kith and kin and friends to the
accused officer, the investigating agency shall follow a specific and systematic
approach while assessing the properties of kith and kin, friends and others
giving due weightage to the details filed before the taxation authorities and also
in the property returns while calculating the disproportionate assets. In spite of
the said facts, the I.O kept aside the instructions issued in the said Memo and
included the properties of my wife, my son and other friends as of my properties to
arrive at a figure to show that I have the assets more than the known source of
income to implicate me in this false case of disproportionate assets.

Further, I submit that the Government of A.P has considered the case of Sri
Kalyanam Bhaskara Rao, Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise (Retd.),
Srikakulam taking into consideration of the guidelines issued in the Memo
No.623/SPL-C/A1/2008-1 dated 15.10.2008 and withdrawn the prosecution on the
disproportionate assets case for Rs.97,86,854/- duly referring the matter to
Departmental enquiry and issued G.O Rt.No. 1645 Rev.(Vig.V) dated
12.11.2013 & reiterated G.O issued in 2016. Accordingly, the Trial Court with
drawn the prosecution which is under trial.

Further, I submit that in another case of Sri Malla Maheswara Rao,

formerly Inspector of Police, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam, the Government
withdrawn the prosecution duly considering the guidelines issued in the said Memo
and issued orders to withdraw the prosecution duly referring the matter to
Departmental enquiry vide G.O.Ms.No. 44 Home (SC-A) Department Dt.

11
19.02.2014 for Rs.2, 68, 50,696/- In this case also, the Trial Court withdrawn the
prosecution.
Incidentally, I bring to the kind attention of Hon’ble Authority that in the
case of Sri C.V.Ramana, Motor Vehicles Inspector, Chittor who was involved in a
trap case, the Government of A.P pleased and dropped the said case in the stage of
FIR, with reference to the letter of D.G.,ACB dated 05.10.2013 and issued
dropped orders vide G.O.Rt.No. 620 Transport, Roads & Buildings (VIG.TR-
2)Dept. dated 16.08.2014 .
Further, it is also imperative to bring to the kind notice of the Hon’ble
Minister for M.A & U.D, Govt. of A.P in the month of November 2017, in the
case of Sri S.Ram Mohan, Deputy Director, Horticulture, Visakhapatnam
examined the representation of the individual with reference to the report of the
DG, ACB, opined that the Bureau has shown certain assets acquired by his
relatives as having been acquired by himself, with mere assumptions and surmises
without correct proof. Hence, the Government inclined to believe and the case is
referred to departmental enquiry, keeping aside the request of the Bureau to
prosecute the individual through G.O.Rt.No.706 Agrl.& Coop.(VIG.I) Dept. Dt.
09.11.2017.

In view the above circumstances enumerated with relevant material

evidence I implore the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Andhra
Pradesh, Velagapudi to kindly interfere in the matter and drop further action
in the interest of principles of natural justice as the facts of my case, also
similar to the cases referred to above, which were considered in terms of the
guidelines issued in the Memo 623/SPL-C/A1/2008-1 dated 15.10.2008 and
withdrawn the prosecution duly referring the matter to Departmental action.

12
 I humble submit further that, I belong to Backward class Group –A,
(Nayi Brahmin), I have no back ground to get help from any one. We have lot
of faith on the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Andhara Pradesh, who have been
helping so many weaker section people in day to day life.

Therefore, I implore the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of

Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravathi to kindly consider my case in
Cr.No. 4/RCA-EWG/2014 dated 17.02.2014 and drop the FIR/ charge sheet
without referring the report of the ACB as was considered in the above cases,
in the interest of natural justice.

Station: Jangareddygudem, Yours faitufully,

Encl: (M.V.Satyanarayana)
Recorded evidence in a booklet. Retd. Asst.Engineer(P.R),
PIU, Jangareddygudem.

13
14