AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri N.Laxminarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing the charge memo vide proceedings No.A7/8065/2007 dated 15.10.2007 against the petitioner and in not concluding the enquiry in spite of lapse of more than 18 years, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, seeks to set aside the same on the ground of delay and laches.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, while the petitioner was working as Panchayat Secretary at Jammiched Village, Gadwal Mandal, the then District Collector, Mahabubnagar, issued the impugned charge memo vide proceedings No.A7/8065/2007 dated 15.10.2007 framing two (2) charges against the petitioner, stating that the petitioner had made a false certification in favour of Sri Venu Gopal Kaveti S/o. Subbaiah Kaveti, as he belongs to Jamched Village and thereby caused inconvenience to the APPSC and that being the responsible preliminary enquiry authority, he had misguided the Government by making wrong certification, pursuant to which the said person had been selected to a Group-II cadre post. Basing on the above charges, the respondent No.2 appointed an Enquiring Authority to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation in response to the charge memo. After issuance of the charge memo, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 08.02.2008 and was subsequently reinstated into service on 24.05.2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 2018 and retired from service on 31.03.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation. But as on date, the respondents have not concluded the enquiry and the same is arbitrary and illegal. In view of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have not finalized and released the retirement benefits payable to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed seeking to set aside the impugned charge memo vide proceedings No.A7/8065/2007 dated 15.10.2007 on the ground that the respondents have failed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in spite of lapse of more than 18 years and on the ground of delay and laches. In view of the same, learned counsel requests this Court to allow the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following Judgments:
P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board1
ii) K.Anand Babu v. The State of Telangana2
On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, basing on the written instructions, submits that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner while he was working as Panchayat Secretary at Jammiched Village, Gadwal Mandal, on the allegation that he had issued a false certificate in favour of Sri Venu Gopal Kaveti S/o. Subbaiah Kaveti and had deviated from his alleged statement recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C during the criminal investigation, thereby allegedly misleading the Government authorities. Basing on the report received from the CID authorities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuance of charge memo No.A7/8065/2007 dated 15.10.2007. On 04.12.2007, the then District Collector, Mahabubnagar, appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal as the Enquiry Officer under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Initially, the petitioner was placed under suspension and subsequently, reinstated into service while keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings continued to remain pending.
Learned Government Pleader for Services-I further submits that as the disciplinary proceedings have not attained finality, the retirement benefits requiring clearance of the disciplinary proceedings, including the release of pensionary benefits, could not be finalized in accordance with the applicable service rules. Although, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner have not yet attained finality, he is entitled to the benefit of provisional pension in accordance with Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 9 read with Rule 52 of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Accordingly, the petitioner is eligible for payment of the admissible provisional pension pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings. The respondents are ready and willing to submit necessary proposals to the competent authority for sanction of provisional pension, as admissible under the Rules, while withholding the final pensionary benefits until disposal of the pending disciplinary case. In view of the same, learned Government Pleader requests this Court to dismiss the writ petition.
After hearing both sides and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no dispute with regard to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing Charge Memo No.A7/8065/2007 dated 15.10.2007 and the petitioner submitted his explanation and also appointed the Enquiry Officer in the year 2008. In spite of lapse of more than 18 years, the respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings and the petitioner has retired from service on 31.03.2025 on attaining the age of superannuation. In view of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have not released the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner.
In the written instructions, the respondents have also not stated any reason for the inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and have only informed this Court that they are ready and willing to pay the provisional pension to the petitioner till conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. However, there are no proceedings placed on record to show that the respondents have taken any further steps or proceeded further in the matter after appointment of the Enquiry Officer.
The respondents have to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 3 months in simple cases and 5 to 6 months in case of complicated cases as per G.O.Ms.No.679, GAD, dated 01.11.2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court time and again held in several cases that the disciplinary proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time, otherwise the same are liable to be quashed on the ground of delay and laches.
The Judgment relied on the learned counsel for the petitioner in P.Mahadevan’s case (supra 1) squarely apply to the instant case and the relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:
11.Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.
The orders of this Court in K.Anand Babu (supra 2) also squarely apply to the facts of the case.
In the instant case also, the respondents without giving any reasons in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner from the year 2007 onwards and withholding the pensionary benefits is arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India.
In view of the above circumstances, the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated through the charge memo vide proceedings No.A7/8065/2007 dated 15.10.2007 issued by the respondent No.2, is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-conclusion of the proceedings within a reasonable time, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court.
In view of the above findings, this Writ petition is allowed by setting aside the charge memo vide proceedings No.A7/8065/2007 dated 15.10.2007 issued by the respondent No.2 and further the respondents are directed to release all pensionary benefits to the petitioner from the date of his retirement i.e., 31.03.2025, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.