Telangana High Court
Dr. D.Sri Ram vs The Director Of Public Health And Family ... on 21 December, 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
********
WRIT PETITION NO.19586 OF 2019
Between :
Dr. D.Sriram s/o.D.Sammaiah,
Age: 54 years, occu: Dy.Civil Surgeon,
I/c. District Medical & Health Officer,
Mahabubabad, Maabubabad district.
...Petitioner
and
The Director of Public Health and Family
Welfare Department, State of Telangana,
Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad and another.
.... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 21.12.2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether his lordship wish to see the : Yes
fair copy of the Judgment ?
LNA,J
W.P. No.19586 of 2019
2
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
+WRIT PETITION NO.19586 OF 2019
%21.12.2023
Between:
# Dr. D.Sriram s/o.D.Sammaiah,
Age: 54 years, occu: Dy.Civil Surgeon,
I/c. District Medical & Health Officer,
Mahabubabad, Maabubabad district.
...Petitioner
and
$ The Director of Public Health and Family
Welfare Department, State of Telangana,
Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad and another.
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : Govt.Pleader for School
Education for respondents
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1998 SCC 154; 2005 (6) SCC 636; 2006 (5) SCC 88; 2013 (4) ALT 1 (DB); 2016 (4) ALD
320 (DB); 1990 Supp SCC 738
LNA,J
W.P. No.19586 of 2019
3
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.19586 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon (General) while considering the number of juniors from time to time even though the petitioner is fully eligible, qualified and within the zone of consideration on the untenable ground that disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge memo RC No.035742/VC.III.B/ 08-15, dated 06.12.2008, is liable to be set aside on the ground of inordinate delay and such action is contrary to the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.GA (Ser-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:
2.1. Petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon through direct recruitment w.e.f. 03.09.1994 and had passed all the necessary departmental tests and his services were regularized and his promotion was declared satisfactorily in the above said cadre.
Petitioner was promoted as Deputy Civil Surgeon in December 2010 and during his long service, his name was considered as In- charge District Medical and Health Offcer on 11.10.2016.
LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 4 Petitioner joined in the said post and discharging his duties sincerely, without any complaints, except the present alleged allegations mentioned in the charge memo dated 06.12.2008 for the issue related to 2002-2007.
2.2. While petitioner was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon at PHC, Neelikuduru, he was transferred to MGM Hospital, Warangal on 17.01.2006 and to PHC, Kambalapally of Warangal District on 12.09.2006 and to PHC, Parvathagiri vide proceedings dated 01.08.2009. While he was working at PHC, Parvathagiri, he was considered for promotion as Deputy Civil Surgeon vide proceedings dated 02.12.2010. While petitioner was working as Medical Officer at Kambalapally, 1st respondent initiated departmental proceedings under Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the Rules, 1991') vide proceedings dated 06.12.2008 for the issue relating to 2002-2007 and the article of charge was framed that Dr. Sriram, Medical Officer, PHC Kambalapally, has not remitted the unspent amount of Rs.25,420/- to the DM&HO, Warangal for the years 2002 to 2007 towards F.P. operations and that he failed to maintain absolute integrity, discipline and devotion to duty and exhibited behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant and violated Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and called explanation from the petitioner.
LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 5 2.3. Petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 05.05.2009 and stated that the alleged unspent balance amount of Rs.25,420/- mentioned in the charge memo was not at all belongs to his working period at PHC, Kambalapally since he has taken over the charge as Medical Officer at Kambalapally on 12.09.2006 and that as on the date, there was no unspent cash balance of FP (Family Planning) budget and ultimately denied the alleged charge with a request to drop further proceedings.
2.4. After lapse of more than five years period from the date of charge memo, one Sri Sanjeeva Rao, Addl.Director was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in terms of Rule 20 of the Rules 1991 and no Presenting Officer was appointed. Pursuant to the notice from the Enquiry Officer, petitioner submitted his detailed defense statement and deposed that an amount of Rs.25,240/- mentioned in charge memo is not pertaining to his period at PHC, Kambalapally and the same pertains to the period of his predecessor Dr.L.Venkanna and that he is no way concerned to the alleged allegations. 2.5. It is further stated that for the same amount and same hospital, similar charge memo was already issued to his predecessor i.e., Dr. L.Venkanna. In response to the charge memo, Dr. Venkanna by accepting his responsibility had remitted the said LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 6 amount through D.D.No.313934 dated 13.02.2009 in favour of 1st respondent and he also addressed letter dated 12.02.2009 to the 1st respondent requesting to drop further action. Despite remitting the said amount by Dr. Venkanna, the respondents issued charge memo on the same issue and did not close the issue. Despite repeated requests of the petitioner, the respondents are not considering his further promotions.
2.6. The Enquiry Officer without considering the above case, submitted perverse report and 1st respondent vide letter dated 23.02.2018 called for explanation of the petitioner. Accordingly, petitioner submitted detailed explanation. However, respondents did not consider the same till date. It is further submitted that in seniority list of Deputy Civil Surgeons working under the control of 1st respondent, the name of the petitioner was included at Sl.No.12 and Sl.Nos.13 to 28 were already promoted, ignoring the case of the petitioner on the sole ground that impugned charge memo is pending.
2.7. It is further submitted that recently also number of his juniors were promoted on 19.09.2018 and further case of Dr.K.Singa Raju who is facing criminal charge was considered for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon (General) vide G.O.Rt.No.305, dated 01.06.2019. However, petitioner is being LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 7 discriminated and has not been promoted by referring to the disciplinary proceedings and charge memo dated 06.12.2008. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Despite granting number of adjournments, the respondents did not choose to file counter. However, the learned Special Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions given by the 1st respondent. As per the written instructions, the Vigilance & Enforcement had taken enquiry with regard to misappropriation of family planning funds for the years 2002 to 2007, misuse of TA bills, NMBS funds and wrong payments etc., at erstwhile Warangal district and submitted report. The Government vide Memo dated 18.10.2008, initiated action against the officials i.e., medical officers of 17 institutions, which include PHC, Kambalapalli. The Commissioner of Health & Family Welfare, Hyderabad has constituted the Special Evaluation Team (SET) to evaluate on the allegations of corruption of funds in Family Planning Operations for the years 2002 to 2007 and the SET has submitted report to the Commissioner of Health & Family Welfare, who in turn forwarded the report to the 1st respondent, who is competent authority to take further necessary action a per CCA Rules.
3.1. Pursuant to the orders of the Government, the disciplinary action was initiated against 21 medial officers including the LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 8 petitioner herein and one senior assistant duly framing the charges under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991. The Vigilance & Enforcement suggested for recovery of an amount of Rs.25,420/- and to launch the criminal case against the petitioner duly initiating departmental action. Accordingly, charges were framed against the petitioner by the 1st respondent vide Memo dated 06.12.2008 and also the District Medical & Health Officer, Warangal has been requested to recover the amount and to book a criminal case against the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted explanation and on submission of explanation, the Regional Director of Medical & Health Officer, Warangal was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who expressed his inability to conduct inquiry. 3.2. Later, the Additional Director (Planning) O/o. Director of Public Health & Family Welfare, Hyderabad was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who also expressed his inability stating that strike of employees during the period of sakala janula samme and requested to appoint another officer. Therefore, Additional Director (Lep.) O/o. DPH&FW, Hyderabad has been nominated as Inquiry Officer, however he too refused to conduct inquiry. Thereafter the Joint Director (NPCB), O/o. DPH&FW, Hyderabad was appointed, who also expressed unwillingness to conduct enquiry. Lastly, the Addl.Director (Admn.) was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 9 inquiry and he conducted enquiry and submitted his report, which was forwarded to the Government.
3.3. The Government vide memo dated 18.01.2016 informed to furnish the enquiry report individual wise against whom charges were framed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991. The 1st respondent on due consideration of the enquiry report came to conclusion that enquiry officer has not done proper inquiry against the medical officers and submitted his findings as 'charges proved' and therefore, the 1st respondent has reappointed the Joint Director (Epid.) O/o Director of Public Health & Family Welfare, Hyderabad as Inquiry Officer and the Chief Accounts Officer, O/o. DPH&FW, Hyderabad has been appointed as Presiding Officer vide order dated 20.01.2019. However, the Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 24.05.2022 expressed his inability to conduct inquiry as he was busy with Covid-19 and requested for exemption from the duties of Inquiry Officer. He further stated that charges have been framed against the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings will be concluded soon after the completion of departmental proceedings shortly and the charges framed against the charged officers including the petitioner is still under inquiry. 3.4. It is further contended that sum of Rs.25,420/- has to be recovered from the charged officer as per the Vigilance and Enforcement report dated 18.10.2008 and the said amount is not LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 10 yet remitted and it is finally contended that Government considered the petitioner for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon (General) and accordingly promotion orders were issued vide G.O.Rt.No.328 HM&FW (VC-1) Department, dated 22.04.2021 and the petitioner was posted as Additional District Medical and Health Officer, Mancherial district and he joined duty on 11.06.2021.
4. Heard learned counsel Sri S.Satyanarayana for the petitioner and the learned Asst.Government Pleader for Services-II. Consideration:
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is being harassed for not granting promotion and though he is eligible and was due to promotion and many of his juniors were already promoted. Only basing on the alleged charge memo dated 06.12.2008, the respondents deliberately not considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner that he was not working with PHC, Kambalapalli at the relevant period i.e., 2002-2007 and he is no way concerned with the alleged misappropriation of the family planning funds and respondents have also ignored the fact of remittance of Rs.25,420/- by Dr. L.Venkanna who was working as Medical Officer during the relevant period i.e., 2002 to 2007, vide DD No.313934 date 13.02.2009 and petitioner is being unnecessarily penalized though he is no way concerned with the alleged charge.
LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 11
6. Learned counsel for petitioner referred to G.O.Ms.No.679 GA (Services.C) Department dated 01.11.2008, as per which, the authorities were directed to complete the departmental enquiries within three months in simple cases and within six months in respect of complicated cases and that alleged charge related to for the years 2002-2007 and charge memo was issued on 06.12.2008 and till date the enquiry is not yet concluded and it is clear violation of G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008. He further submitted that petitioner is being penalized for no fault of him without considering the material placed before the respondents and remittance of the alleged amount by the concerned officer i.e., Dr. L.Venkanna by way of demand draft.
7. Leaned counsel for petitioner relied upon the following decisions in support of his contention:
i) State of A.P., vs. N.Radhakishan 1;
ii) P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board Corporation 2;
iii) M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India 3;
iv) D.Srinivas v. Govt. of A.P., Transport, Roads and Buildings (Vig.I) Dept., and others 4;
v) State of Telangana and others vs. L.Galanna and another 5 1 1998 SCC 154 2 2005 (6) SCC 636 3 2006 (5) SCC 88 4 2013 (4) ALT 1 (DB) LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 12
vi) Order of learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14566 of 2019, dated 25.04.2023 (Dr.M.Kumara Swamy vs. The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Hyderabad).
8. Per contra, learned Asst. Government Pleader would submit that petitioner indulged in misappropriation of family planning funds, which is evident from the report given by the Enquiry Officer and further submitted that the Enquiry Officer came to conclusion that charges proved. The departmental proceedings are not yet completed and basing on the result of departmental proceedings, the respondents had taken further action. It is also submitted that petitioner was considered for promotion for the post of Civil Surgeon (General) and was appointed as Additional DM&HO, Mancherial district vide G.O.Rt.No.328, dated 22.04.2021 and he jointed said post and discharging his duties. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is already redressed and finally submitted that writ petition fails and liable to be dismissed.
9. Perusal of the record show that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department conducted enquiry and submitted report to the Government to take action against officers i.e., Medical Officers of 17 institutions including PHC, Kambalapalli alleging misappropriation of family planning funds for the year 2002 to 2007 and misuse of TA Bills, NMBS funds and wrong payments 5 2016 (4) ALD 320 (DB) LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 13 etc. It is relevant to note that Dr. L.Venkanna who was working as Medial Officer at PHC Kambalapalli during the relevant period i.e., 2002 to 2007 had remitted the alleged misappropriation amount of Rs.25,420/- by way of demand draft through his letter dated 12.02.2009. In the said letter, he stated that he was working as Medical Officer at PHC, Kambalapalli from 1999 to 2006 and further stated that he had not concentrated on money transactions due to his busy schedules and left the financial matters entirely to his senior assistant who was specifically allotted to the PHC for this purpose. Therefore, he is unaware as to how the discrepancy had occurred with regard to unspent amount of Rs.25,420/-. It is further stated that the observations made by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, he has remitted an amount of Rs.25,420/- vide DD No.313934 dated 12.02.2009 in favour of the Commissioner of Family Welfare, A.P., Hyderabad and finally, prayed to accept the same and drop further action against him.
10. It is also relevant to note that Head of Special Evaluation Team and Regional Director, M&H, Services, Zone-VI, Hyderabad addressed letter dated 30.05.2009 to the Commissioner, Family Welfare, Hyderabad, by which, had informed the remittance of unspent Family fund amounts by various medica officers consequent to evaluation report, which includes amount of Rs.25,420/- remitted by Dr.L.Venkanna. Notwithstanding the LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 14 above letter and alleged remittance of the amount by Dr.L.Venkanna, charge-memo was issued against Dr.L.Venkanna.
11. Charge memo issued to the petitioner is pursued and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. As per the written instructions of the 1st respondent, the Enquiry Officer has not done proper enquiry and has come to finding the charge proved. It itself shows that no proper enquiry was conducted and proceedings are being way back to 2002 to 2007 not being concluded till date.
12. From the material placed on record, complaints and written instructions of 1st respondent, it is clear that departmental proceedings are being pursued against the petitioner without there being any material and without considering remittance of misappropriation amount of Rs.25,420/- by Dr.L.Venkanna, who was working as Medical Officer at PHC, Kambalapalli at the relevant period i.e., 2002-2007, respondents have not considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner.
13. In N.Radhakishan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 15 terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.
20. In the present case we find that without any reference to records merely on the report of the Director General, Anti- Corruption Bureau, charges were framed against the respondent and ten others, all in verbatim and without particularising the role played by each of the officers charged.
LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 16 There were four charges against the respondent. With three of them he was not concerned. He offered explanation regarding the fourth charge but the disciplinary authority did not examine the same nor did it choose to appoint any enquiry officer even assuming that action was validly being initiated under the 1991 Rules. There is no explanation whatsoever for delay in concluding the enquiry proceedings all these years. The case depended on records of the Department only and the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau had pointed out that no witnesses had been examined before he gave his report. The Enquiry Officers who had been appointed one after the other had just to examine the records to see if the alleged deviations and constructions were illegal and unauthorised and then as to who was responsible for condoning or approving the same against the bye-laws. It is nobody's case that the respondent at any stage tried to obstruct or delay the enquiry proceedings. The Tribunal rightly did not accept the explanations of the State as to why delay occurred. In fact there was hardly any explanation worth consideration. In the circumstances the Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated 31-7-1995 and directing the State to promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos dated 27-10-1995 and 1-6-1996. The Tribunal rightly did not quash these two latter memos."
14. In P.V.Mahadevan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"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 LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 17 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.
12. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs."
15. In M.V.Bijlani (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"16. So far as the second charge is concerned, it has not been shown as to what were the duties of the appellant in terms of the prescribed rules or otherwise. Furthermore, it has not been shown either by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority as to how and in what manner the maintenance of ACE-8 Register by way of sheets which were found attached to the estimate file were not appropriate so as to arrive at the culpability or otherwise of the appellant. The Appellate Authority in its order stated that the appellant was not required to prepare ACE-8 Register twice. The appellant might have prepared another set of register presumably keeping in view the fact that he was asked to account for the same on the LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 18 basis of the materials placed on records. The Tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into consideration that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years and they continued for a period of seven years and, thus, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after such a long time evidently prejudiced the delinquent officer.
16. In State of M.P. v. Bani Singh 6, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"4. The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry are said to have taken place between the years 1975-
77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage."
17. In D.Srinivas (supra), the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P., held as under:
"18. Coming to the case on hand, it is to be noticed that the charge relates to the year 1998 and no steps were taken immediately on the subject-matter of the charge. Only pursuant to the complaint lodged against the Executive Engineer (Electrical) alone before the Upa-Lokayuktha, A.P., and basing on the ex parte preliminary enquiry report, 6 1990 Supp SCC 738 LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 19 proceedings were initiated which were later dropped. Thereafter, regular departmental enquiry is conducted and on one ground or the other the enquiry officers were changed, which is admitted in the counter-affidavit, stating that delay is only on account of administrative reasons. Having regard to the nature of charge and the plea of delay, we are of the considered view that there is abnormal and unexplained delay on the part of the disciplinary authority in completing the enquiry and imposing punishment. Such an action is contrary to the judgments referred above apart from the executive instructions issued by the Government itself. Even for the said reason, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 02.12.2011 passed in O.A. No. 8278 of 2011 and, further, order dated 04.12.2012 passed in Rev. M.A. No. 3802 of 2011, by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, is set aside. Consequently, the final order imposing punishment on the petitioner vide G.O. Rt. No. 734, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Vig.I) Department dated 28.07.2011 is quashed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits. No order as to costs."
18. In L.Galanna (supra), the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of A.P., held as under:
"4. On a careful consideration of the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any explanation whatsoever offered by the petitioners for their failure to conclude disciplinary proceedings for a decade, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned cases was rightly applied by the Tribunal in quashing the disciplinary proceedings. "
LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 20
19. From the catena of judgments referred to above, it is clear that continuation of disciplinary proceedings for long time without any justification or reason would result in grave injustice, mental agony and distress to the employee and in a given case, the disciplinary proceedings can be quashed depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
20. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.679, G.A. (Ser-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, the Government directed that the disciplinary cases initiated against the Government employees shall be completed as expeditiously as possible i.e., a normal time of 3 months and 6 months is allowed in simple and complicated cases, respectively. In case of abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, action shall be initiated against concerned inquiring authority.
21. In the present case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated vide charge memo dated 06.12.2008 for the alleged misappropriation relating to the years 2002-2007, to which petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 05.02.2009 and brought to the notice of the respondents that the alleged unspent amount does not pertain to the period, as he took charge as Medical Officer, Kambalapalli on 12.09.2006, whereas the issue relates to the years 2002-2007. After lapse of five years from the LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 21 date of charge memo, enquiry officer was appointed, who submitted report adverse to the petitioner, basing on which explanation was called for from the petitioner vide letter dated 23.02.2018, to which petitioner submitted explanation. The 1st respondent came to conclusion that enquiry officer has not done proper inquiry against the medical officers and submitted his findings as 'charges proved' and therefore, the 1st respondent had appointed another officer vide letter dated 20.01.2019. However, the enquiry officer vide letter dated 24.05.2022 expressed his inability to conduct inquiry and thus, the departmental proceedings are not yet concluded.
22. In the present case, the alleged charge related to for the years 2002-2007 and charge memo was issued on 06.12.2008 and till date the enquiry is not yet been concluded, which is clear violation of G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008. The petitioner is being penalized for no fault of him without considering the explanation, material placed by him before the respondents and also remittance of the alleged amount by the concerned officer i.e., Dr. L.Venkanna by way of demand draft, who was working during the relevant period at PHC, Kambalapalli.
Conclusion:
23. In the light of above discussion, facts and legal precedents, continuation of disciplinary proceedings/enquiry against the LNA,J W.P. No.19586 of 2019 22 petitioner since 06.12.2008 without there being any progress is gross abuse and would lead to grave injustice, harassment, mental agony to the petitioner and also amounts to condemnation of the person and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be set aside/quashed.
24. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed and respondents are directed to accord notional seniority to the petitioner from the date he was due and eligible, together with all the monitory benefits and consequential promotions. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 21.12.2023 Note: L.R. copy to be marked: Yes (b/o.) kkm