C.V.G. Murali Krishna vs The Directorate Of Public Health ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 758 AP

   HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

               WRIT PETITION No.25786 of 2021

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India questioning the inaction of the 1st respondent in

completion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the

petitioner in R.C.No.16805/Y1/2014, dated 30.06.2016

considering the representation of this petitioner dated

03.09.2016 and consequently issue a direction to the 1st

respondent to continue the petitioner in service.

2. While the petitioner was working as Service Engineer

at Anantapuramu in the office of the District Medical and

Health Officer, Anantapuramu, under the 1st respondent,

disciplinary proceedings were initiated against this petitioner

on the ground that he was absent from duty un-authorizedly.

The disciplinary proceedings were initiated vide its proceedings

in R.C.No.16805/Y1/2014, dated 30.06.2016, and proposed

the punishment of removal from service and directed to make a

representation in response to the said show cause notice to

impose punishment proposed.

In pursuance of the notice, the petitioner submitted a

representation dated 03.09.2016 requesting the 1st respondent

not to impose such major punishment proposed, while,

explaining the reasons and compelling circumstances for his

un-authorized absence. However, the disciplinary proceedings

were not finalized and he was not allowed to continue in his

post and thereby left unemployed. Under these circumstances,

he preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.12623 of 2019 seeking to

direct the 1st respondent to finalize the disciplinary proceedings

duly considering the representation dated 03.09.2016 and this

Court was pleased to dispose of the Writ Petition on

30.08.2019, directed the 1st respondent to consider the said

representation within four weeks and to proceed ex parte if the

petitioner does not cooperate with the enquiry. The 1st

respondent addressed certain letters to the 2nd respondent

pursuant to the said order in the Writ Petition seeking

clarification from the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent

in-turn vide its Memo No.HMFO1-PHFWODPH

(VDIS)/30/VC.1(2)/2019, dated 25.11.2019, directed the 1st

respondent to consider the representation in the light of certain

judgments of the Supreme Court as quoted in the Memo, a

copy of which is not in the petitioner's possession, which he

could not secure despite filing RTI application dated

04.03.2020.

The 2nd respondent, vide its Memo No. HMFO1-

PHFWODPH(VDIS)/30/VC.1(2)/2019, dated 02.03.2020

directed the 1st respondent to clarify certain points as to why

the disciplinary proceedings were not initiated against this

petitioner in time even though his earliest representation was

in the year 2012 itself, to drop the disciplinary proceedings

against him. The fact however remains that the 1st respondent

is yet to finalize the disciplinary proceedings and the 1st

respondent needs to act independently being the original

disciplinary authority. But the respondents No.1 and 2 did not

act in terms of the orders issued by this Court and in

accordance with law. Therefore, the inaction on the part of the

respondents No.1 and 2 is illegal, arbitrary and requested to

issue a direction as prayed for.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the

respondents.

4. During hearing, Sri K. Neelakanteswara Rao, learned

counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions, whereas,

the learned Government Pleader agreed to conclude the

disciplinary proceedings, if any pending against this petitioner.

5. The allegations made in the petition are ambiguous

for the reason that a notice was issued to this petitioner

proposing major punishment of removal from service, but the

question of issuing such notice would arise only after

completion of enquiry. Whereas, it appears that a notice was

issued even before commencement of enquiry, appointment of

enquiry officer after following procedure under Rule 20 (5)(c) of

APCS (CCA) Rules.

6. The facts narrated in the petition are ambiguous. A

copy of notice was placed on record to show that the

respondents even before initiation of disciplinary enquiry,

proposed to impose penalty of major punishment of removal

from service. The disciplinary proceedings were either initiated

or any steps were taken against this petitioner.

7. Keeping in view the matter pending without initiating

disciplinary enquiry or without dropping any enquiry,

departmental action proposed against this petitioner is

certainly amounts to the inaction on the part of the

administrative authority i.e., respondents No.1 and 2. Hence,

such inaction is declared as illegal and arbitrary and

consequently the respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to take

immediate action on the notice and the representation

submitted by this petitioner dated 03.09.2016 either to initiate

the proceedings or to drop the action against this petitioner

within four (04) weeks from today and failure to comply with

this direction would lead to serious consequences.

8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed

of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications

shall stand closed.

___________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

Date : 11-02-2021 Gvl

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION No.25786 of 2020

Date : 11.02.2021

Gvl