B.Jyothi Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 81 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                    WRIT PETITION No.472 OF 2021

ORDER:-


      This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

            "......pleased      to    issue      an    appropriate       writ,   order   or
     direction more    particularly       one in the          nature of       writ   of
     Mandamus to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing

the Charge Memos by vide G.O.Rt.No.1319 dt.07.11.2007, G.O.Rt.No.689 dt.06.12.2016 and G.O.Rt.No.1087 dt.23.11.2018 for the incident took more than a decade and not finalizing the enquiry is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and quash the same with a further direction to promote the petitioner as Municipal Commissioner Gr-I with all consequential benefits and pass......"

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner was selected in Group II B Services and

appointed as Junior Assistant in the office of respondent No.2 in the

year 1991 and later, promoted as Senior Assistant in the year 1994

and further promoted as Superintendent in the year 1997. She was

again promoted as Municipal Commissioner Grade-II on 19.11.2001

on transfer. The Government issued instructions in Circular Memo

No.35676/Ser.C/9, dated 01.07.1999, that in simple cases, enquiry

should be completed within three months and in complicated cases,

within six months. The Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.679,

General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008,

directing that the disciplinary cases initiated against Government

Employees shall be completed as expeditiously as possible. The

Government has also issued U.O.Note No.27360/Ser.C/A1/09-1,

dated 07.08.2009, directing that the disciplinary cases against the

employees shall be dealt on priority basis to avoid delay. Thus, the

enquiry initiated against this petitioner is kept pending contrary to

the circular memos issued by the Government. On account of

keeping the enquiry pending without any further process, the

petitioner is being put to serious loss and the inaction of the

disciplinary authority in keeping enquiry pending for more than four

years is illegal and arbitrary and requested to issue a direction.

4. During hearing, Sri K.Raghavendra Venkatesh, learned

counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions and sought a

direction to the respondents to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously

as possible, in any event, not later than three months.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the

respondents readily agreed to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously

as possible and requested to issue necessary direction.

6. Undisputedly, an enquiry was initiated against this petitioner

and it is pending for the last more than four years though there are

several circulars referred above directing the disciplinary authorities

to conclude the departmental enquiries as expeditiously as possible

since such enquiries will seriously affect the efficiency of the

employee so also cause substantial loss to the employee. Thus, the

disciplinary authorities are under an obligation to conclude the

departmental enquiries as early as possible but for one reason or the

other, the enquiry initiated against this petitioner is still not

concluded and it is a clear violation of the circular Memos issued by

the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1319, dated 07.11.2007,

G.O.Rt.No.689, dated 06.12.2016, and G.O.Rt.No.1087, dated

23.11.2018. In that view of the matter, a similar question came up

for consideration before a Division Bench of the common High Court

at Hyderabad in W.P.Nos.25587, 26311 and 26381 of 2009 wherein

the Court, relying on various judgments in Rekha Chaturvedi vs.

University of Rajasthan1 and B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India2,

concluded that a different opinion was expressed to the effect that

High Courts too are to do complete justice, though the power of the

High Court would not be as wide as that which the Supreme Court

has under Article 142.

7. Keeping in view the law declared by the Division Bench in the

judgments referred to above and applying the same principles to the

facts of the present case, respondent No.1 is directed to conclude the

enquiry initiated against this petitioner in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than six (6) months

from today.

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

stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition

shall stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date : 7.1.2021 AMD

1993 Supp (3) SCC 168

(1995) 6 SCC 749

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION No.472 OF 2021

Date : 07.01.2021

AMD