K. Hanumantha Rao, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2547 AP

                               1




      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

            WRIT PETITION No.17544 of 2020

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a

Writ of Mandamus and to set aside the disciplinary

proceedings which are pending from December, 2013. He

also seeks consequential relief for effecting regular promotion

on par with his juniors.

This Court has heard Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, learned

counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government

Pleader for Services-I for respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the

petitioner was working as Inspector of Police and was

promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police on ad hoc basis

on 16.07.2020. He was issued a Charge Memo on

06.12.2013 for some alleged offences and the matter was

referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (in

Tribunal Enquiry Case No.18 of 2013). Learned counsel

argues that from 2013 till date no effective proceedings have

been taken and that because of the pendency of the enquiry

proceedings the petitioner's juniors were already promoted

and petitioner is denied promotion. He argues that this delay

is ground enough to quash all further proceedings. He relies

upon the judgments which are filed by him and in particular

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.V.

Mahadevan v M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board1 to argue

that the appellant should not be made to suffer because of

the mistakes of the department and that the proceedings

should be quashed. He also relies upon Prem Nath Bali v

Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Another2 and State of

A.P. v N. Radhakishan3 and other cases to argue that in

certain cases of such gross delay this Court should not

merely direct the conclusion of the old enquiry but should in

fact quash all further proceedings. It is his submission that

a Government Officer should not be penalized in this manner

by keeping the proceedings pending and promoting his

juniors. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner

this itself is a ground enough to quash all further

proceedings. He relies upon the G.O. Ms. No.679, dated

01.11.2008, issued by the State Government, which

stipulated time frame of 3 months and 6 months for simple

and complicated cases respectively. It is his submission that

in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 if the enquiry is not completed

action can also be initiated against the concerned enquiring

authority.

Learned Government Pleader for services-I vehemently

opposes the prayer. He contends that the State had option

of conducting enquiry and / or to refer it to Tribunal for

(2005) 6 SCC 636

(2015) 16 SCC 415

(1998) 4 SCC 154

Disciplinary Proceedings. This particular case was referred

to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. However, as the

Tribunal has not been functioning the proceedings got

delayed. He points out that due to bifurcation of the State of

Andhra Pradesh further delay had occurred. Learned

Government Pleader points out that as mentioned in reply to

para 4 a number of letters were addressed to High Court of

Andhra Pradesh for appointment of officers for the Tribunal

for Disciplinary Proceedings in order to proceed with the

enquiries. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, as per

the learned Government Pleader, is a part of the Judiciary

and therefore the State cannot pass any orders or direct them

to hold enquires quickly. It is his contention that as the

petitioner is accused of a charge, which is serious in nature,

the proceedings should be allowed to be continued and

should not be directed to be quashed. He also submits that

the judgment of P.V. Mahadevan case (1 supra), which is

relied on by the petitioner is not at all applicable. He points

out that only in case of gross willful delay in concluding the

enquiry, quashing is permissible, but in the case on hand the

case of "systematic delay" and not the case of deliberate

personal delay. Therefore, learned Government Pleader

argues that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

COURT:

As per the settled law on the subject delay of finalization

of the proceeding is a ground to set aside the disciplinary

proceedings. However, as to what constitutes the delay

cannot be laid down in straight jacket formula. Delay varies

from case to case. The Court has also got a duty to balance

the needs of both the parties and then decide whether the

disciplinary authority was serious in performing its duty or

not. The balance between the needs of the State to punish a

corrupt employee, uphold discipline and rights of an

individual should be protected. Each case has to be

considered on its own facts. This is gleaned from the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in

N. Radhakishan case (3 supra).

Against the backdrop of this case, if the present case is

seen, it is clear that the alleged offence, for which the

petitioner was charged, occurred on 13.12.2011 when a TATA

Vista vehicle was intercepted and a sum of Rs.3,62,640/- was

seized from the said vehicle. Approximately two years later

on 06.12.2013 Charge Memo was issued. After that the

proceedings did not commence let alone conclude. The Writ

Petition is filed in 2020 and the hearings are being conducted

in 2021, but till date the hearing in the case has not been

completed.

The reasons given by the State in the counter are the

bifurcation of the State and the failure and their inability to

get members appointed to the Tribunal for Disciplinary

Proceedings. As per the counter itself the bifurcation of the

State of Andhra Pradesh took place on 02.06.2014, that is

about seven years ago. The steps taken by the State are the

addressing of letters dated 23.01.2020, 06.02.2020,

03.09.2020. Beyond this the counter does not state anything

further was done.

As mentioned earlier the proceedings are pending since

2013; the State was bifurcated in 2014 and three letters were

addressed in 2020. Beyond this nothing further is disclosed

in the counter. This Court also notices that under Section

4(A) of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Act 1960,

the State has the power to withdraw the proceedings from the

Tribunal to itself. This power is not exercised. It is also not

stated that the petitioner is responsible for the delay. A

number of orders were already passed by the learned Judges

of this Court in a series of cases; some of which filed within

the Writ Petition itself. Time was being given by this Court to

conclude the proceedings and it was mentioned that if they

were not completed within the stipulated time they were

being quashed in default. Some Judges also quashed the

proceedings on the ground of delay. Despite the series of

orders being passed against the State the respondents have

not taken concrete, positive action to ensure the functioning

of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings or to ensure that

the proceedings are continued in other manner.

If the actions of both the parties are viewed in this

perspective, it is clear that the petitioner did not do anything

to delay the proceedings yet this threat of proceedings /

punishment was hanging over his head. The two grounds

urged for the delay "systematic delay" viz., the bifurcation of

the State and other delays do not constitute grounds to

excuse the long delay. For seven long years nothing concrete

was done by the respondents. As per the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P.V. Mahadevan case (1

supra) and in N. Radhakishan case (3 supra), this Court is

of the opinion that the Charge Memo has to be quashed. In

paragraph 11 of P.V. Mahadevan case (1 supra) the

Supreme Court of India held that it is necessary to draw a

curtain to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant in the

case, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, has suffered

enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the mental

agony and the suffering of the appellant due to the protracted

disciplinary proceedings are much more than the

punishment. Similarly, in the case of N. Radhakishan case

(3 supra) also the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that

the explanation given for the delay was not worth considering

and the Tribunal was right in quashing the Charge Memo

dated 31.07.2015.

This Court after analyzing the reasons, considering the

submissions and the case law is of the firm opinion that there

is unexplained delay and clear lethargy in the disposal of the

case against the petitioner.

The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed quashing the

above proceedings and directing the respondents to consider

the petitioner for regular promotion. There shall be no order

as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications, if any,

pending shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J

Date:23.07.2021.

Ssv