Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Ap vs Dwarapureddy Sudhakara Rao on 23 August, 2024
APHC010518512023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3466]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1050/2023
Between:
The State Of AP and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Dwarapureddy Sudhakara Rao ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. Learned GP for Services - III (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. Sri.G.Tuhin Kumar
The Court made the following:
//2//
WA.No.1050 OF 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT APPEAL No.1050 OF 2023
JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Harinath. N) :
The writ appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the Order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 31.10.2009 and further directed release of all pensionary benefits as entitled to.
2. The respondent was working as Executive Engineer at Vamsadhara Project from 07.07.2009 and attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012. During the year 1977 GOTTA barrage was constructed across Vamsadhara River near Gotta Village of Heera Mandalam, Srikakulam District and left main canal was also constructed. The shutters of the canal and the barrage required periodic maintenance. Procurement of the necessary maintenance of the shutters took place during the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-
09.
3. An enquiry was conducted against the respondent by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department basing on certain anonymous petitions. The enquiry report was submitted on 25.03.2009. Basing on //3// WA.No.1050 OF 2023 the enquiry report 30 officers including the respondent were suspended.
4. The respondent filed an O.A. before the Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of suspension, the Tribunal declined to interfere, as such the respondent filed WP.No.17751 of 2009 and this Court vide orders dated 26.08.2009 directed the respondents therein to complete the enquiry preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of charge sheet.
5. The respondent was issued a charge sheet dated 31.10.2009 and the respondent submitted his reply on 09.12.2009. The enquiry was concluded on 07.07.2011. The appellants appointed another enquiry officer on 31.03.2012 who submitted his report without conducting any enquiry and the same was communicated to the respondent on 24.05.2013. The respondent submitted his explanation on 24.07.2013. Nothing further was heard from the appellants by the respondent. The respondent filed WP.No.22244 of 2020 and this Court initially passed interim order, however the writ petition was withdrawn on 21.04.2022.
6. The learned Single Judge has considered the charges framed in detail and passed the order under appeal. The learned Single Judge has observed that there has been inordinate delay in conducting and concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Considering the same, the //4// WA.No.1050 OF 2023 learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and draws the attention of the Court to the Articles of Charge. It is submitted that the check measurements are conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer and not the Deputy Executive Engineer. It is also submitted that it is permissible under the guidelines for splitting of work for the contractors and work of less than Rs.5,00,000/- can be awarded on nomination basis.
8. It is also submitted that even without holding the respondent guilty of any other charges the punishment of cutting 100% pension is imposed on the respondent. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent is made to suffer though none of the charges have been held to be conclusively proved by the disciplinary authority. In the absence of the same and on account of inordinate delay caused by the appellants there is absolutely no error which can be pointed out by the appellant in the order under appeal. The reliance is placed on the following judgments. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that charge sheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it 1 2012 (11) SCC 565 //5// WA.No.1050 OF 2023 does not adversely affects the rights of delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued while authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the charge sheet can be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings have been initiated at a belated stage or could not be completed in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings. It is submitted that in the instant case, the enquiry is initiated basing on unanimous complaints. Reliance is also placed on P.V.Madhavan Vs. Md.Housing Board2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the departmental disciplinary proceedings on the ground of inordinate delay.
9. Considering the submissions of the learned Government Pleader and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and after perusing the record it is evident that the articles of charge were issued soon after the appellants received some information on the execution of maintenance works of the shutter gates. The same requires a detailed enquiry.
2 2005 (6) SCC 366 //6// WA.No.1050 OF 2023
10. The enquiry was conducted, however the disciplinary proceedings remained inconclusive till date. The appellants claim that for certain period of time, the stay issued by this Court was in operation, however, even after the writ petition No.22244 of 2020 was withdrawn, the disciplinary proceedings still remain unconcluded.
11. On the facts of this case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the proceedings dated 31.10.2009 could not have been set aside by the learned Single Judge. As such, the order of the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside with a direction to the appellants to conclude the disciplinary proceedings by duly considering the show cause notice issued, the reply submitted by the respondent preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
_____________________ JUSTICE G.NARENDAR ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 23.08.2024 KGM //7// WA.No.1050 OF 2023 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT APPEAL No.1050 OF 2023 23.08.2024 KGM