The State Of Andhra Pradesh. vs Ch China Babu
2021 Latest Caselaw 1625 AP

                                1




     HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                 &
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

                     W.A. No. 45 of 2021

             (Taken up through video conferencing)

 The State of Andhra Pradesh,
 represented by its Principal
 Secretary,     Tribal    Welfare
 Department, Block No. 3,
 Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur
 District and another.
                                                     ...Appellants/
                                             Respondent No. 1 and 2
                              Versus

 Ch. China Babu, S/o. Late
 Narayana, Aged about 64 years,
 Deputy Chief Engineer (Retired),
 Tribal  Welfare    Engineering
 Department, Andhra Pradesh,
 R/o. D. No. 9-17-26, CBM
 Compound, Visakhapatnam -
 530 003, back side of Eenadu,
 Vijayawada, Krishna District.
                          ...Respondent No. 1 /Writ Petitioner

 The    Accountant     General,
 Andhra                Pradesh,
 Ibrahimpatnam,    Vijayawada,
 Krishna District.
                                       ...Respondent/Respondent

 Counsel for the Appellants          : Mr. Bheema Rao
                                       G.P., for Services.

 Counsel for 1st Respondent/W.P. : Mr. Poodattu Amarender

 Counsel for Respondent              : ---     --- ---

 Date of hearing                     : 03.03.2021

 Date of pronouncement               : 20.03.2021.
                                    2




                             JUDGMENT

(Per C. Praveen Kumar, J)

1) Aggrieved by the Order, dated 30.01.2020, passed in

W.P. No.1865 of 2020, the State of Andhra Pradesh,

represented by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare

Department, and the Engineer-in-Chief, Tribal Welfare Office,

preferred the present writ appeal.

2) The Respondent/Writ Petitioner filed the above Writ

Petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the

action of the Respondents in not concluding the disciplinary

proceedings as per the time schedule fixed by the

Government, and the inordinate delay in concluding the

disciplinary proceedings for the issues relating to 1998-1999

and onwards as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3) The factual matrix of the case is as under:

(i) The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant

Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department in the year

1982 and later promoted to the post of Deputy Executive

Engineer in the year 1990. He continued as such till

31.10.1995. Subsequently, he was absorbed in Tribal Welfare

Engineering Department vide Orders in G.O. Rt. No. 969 (SW)

dated 09.10.1995. Later, he was promoted as Executive

Engineer (Incharge) in the Office of Engineering-in-Chief and

later promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer

(Incharge) in the year 2013. After bifurcation of the State of

Andhra Pradesh, he was appointed as Deputy Chief Engineer

in the Office of ENC and retired from service after attaining

the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016.

(ii) It is stated that, though he retired from service on

30.06.2016, his pensionary benefits were not settled on the

ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated while

he was in employment. He made a representation on

10.02.2018 to the Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare

Department and also to the Engineer-in-Chief, Tribal Welfare

Department, requesting them to furnish list of cases in which

the disciplinary proceedings are initiated and pending against

him and also the stages of those cases. Vide letter, dated

12.03.2018, the Public Information Officer, Tribal Welfare

Department, furnished list of cases and stage of proceedings

pending against him.

(iii) Having regard to the fact that these proceedings

are pending since 2000 onwards, and the last one being the

one, in which charge memo was issued in the year 2011, he

submits that continuation of disciplinary proceedings against

him would be contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court. In the circumstances, he prays for quashing

of all the disciplinary proceedings.

(iv) Vide Order, dated 30.01.2020, the learned Single

Judge of this court disposed of the Writ Petition holding as

under:

"4. Hence, in the light of the above, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to conclude the enquiry pending against the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the enquiry proceedings shall stand quashed. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry and the delay, due to any fault on his part, shall be considered for extension of the time."

4) Challenging the said Order, the present appeal came to

be filed by the State.

5) Sri. Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for

Services, would contend that as there are eight disciplinary

proceedings pending against the Writ Petitioner, fixing a time

limit of four months to complete the same would be improper

and incorrect. He further pleads that disciplinary proceedings

initiated against the Writ Petitioner could not be completed

due to dislocation of files at the time of bifurcation of the

State. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made

against the Writ Petitioner, he would submit that the two

judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel shall not apply

to the facts of the case.

6) On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for

the Writ Petitioner submits that the order under challenge

warrants no interference. According to him, though four

months time has been granted to complete the disciplinary

proceedings, but till date no effort was made to proceed with

the proceedings. According to him, though in respect of first

issue, a report was submitted to the Government in the year

2002, till date no orders are passed. According to him, this

circumstance is sufficient enough to quash the proceedings. It

is urged that though the Writ Petitioner retired in the year

2016, the pensionary benefits, which he is entitled to are not

released thereby putting him to untold misery.

7) The issue as to whether the departmental proceedings

can be quashed due to abnormal delay in completing the

same came up for consideration in State of A.P. v. N.

Radhakishan1. Dealing with the facts in issue, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held as under:

"It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined 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 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 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

(1998) 4 SCC 154

particularly when 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 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 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 its 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 or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration."

8) Relying upon the judgment in N. Radhakishan case

[supra], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.V. Mahadevan v.

MD. T.N. Housing Board2 held as under:

"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 officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee

(2005) 6 SCC 636

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.

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 benefit shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs."

9) From the judgments referred to above, it is very clear

that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the

delinquent employee is required to be concluded expeditiously

and he should not be made to undergo mental agony and

monetary loss. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that if the

delay is unexplained, prejudice to the delinquent employee is

writ large on the face of it. The Court also went on to hold

that in considering whether delay vitiates the disciplinary

proceedings, the court has to consider the nature of charge,

its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred.

10) Keeping in view the above guidelines, we shall now

proceed to deal with the case on hand.

11) Admittedly, the Petitioner herein retired from service on

30.06.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. His

pensionary benefits are not being settled on the ground of

pendency of disciplinary proceedings. The material placed

before the court show that disciplinary proceedings in about

eight cases are pending against the Petitioner. The details of

which are as follows:

Sl Case No. Details of the Charges framed disciplinary case

1. 9508/ TWED - Estt. - That the said Sri. Ch. Chinna Babu while TW.Ser. TW Division, functioning as EE (I/c) TW, Paderu, II.1/2000 Paderu - Drawel Visakhapatnam during the period from of advances 21.11.98 to 8.3.99 have committed certain indiscriminately serious irregularities in issuing huge and without advances to Dy. EE (TW) without adjustment.

                  executing      the   He has gone on issuing huge advances on
                  works            -   several occasions without maintenance of
                  Allegations          records.
                  against Sri. Ch.
                  Chinna     Babu,     That the EE I/c (TW) is said to have
                  formerly EE I/s.     transferred Rs.29.00 lakhs on grants transfer
                  Paderu and Sri.      basis to the former Dy. EE, Araku. The
                  A.V. Subba Rao,      practice of issue of huge advances to one Dy.
                  formerly       Dy.   EE without insisting on adjustment of the
                  E.E.         (TW)    previous advances is irregular and I/s. EE
                  Arukuvally           has failed to report the same to higher
                  entrusted      the   authorities. Further, there is no pursuance
                  case to COI -        on part of the then EE I/s regarding
                  Report received      adjustment of advances given by him to Dy.
                  communicated         E.E.. He has also not obtained necessary
                  to the Charged       requisition letters from AEE / Dy. EE before
                  Officers         -   issue of advances. He failed to get the
                  Regarding.           permission of higher authorities for executing

the works departmentally. He has also violated orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 30, dated 17.2.94 by not getting the works done through the VTDAs.

Under tourism grants the EE I/c has issued separate cheques on the same day i.e., on 8.3.99 to Dy. EE, Araku for Rs.4.00 lakhs and Rs.2.00 lakhs which is in violation of Financial and Treasury Code Rules.

2. 13706/T Public services - Case has been entrusted to Tribunal for W.Ser.II.1 ACB Disciplinary Proceeding.

     /2001        Disciplinary
                  cases           -
                  Government
                  servant placed
                  on       defense
                  before        the
                  Disciplinary
                  proceedings
                  Tribunal        -
                  Orders - Issued.

3.   6637/TW      Public Services      That Sri. Ch. Chinna Babu, EE, TW,
     .Ser.II.1/   - Allegation of      Visakhapatnam has failed to discharge his
     2008         irregularities in    legitimate duties in execution of work
                  execution       of   "providing  BT    to     the    road    from
                  works                Nittamamidipalem      to      Gondau       in
                  "Providing B.T.      Visakhapatnam    District,   loss    to   the
                  to the road from     Government Rs.8,57,250/-.
                  Nittamamadi
                  Junction        to
                  Gondau"       VSP
                  District - Sri
                  Ch.       Chinna
                  Babu, Executive
                  Engineer     (TW)
                  Department and
                  other officials of
                  Panchayat Raj
                  Department       -
                  Certain material
                  furnished        -
                  Submission of
                  statement       of
                  defence          -
                  Regarding.



4.   8136/TW      PUBLIC               Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, I/C. Executive
     .Ser.II.1/   SERVICES        -    Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu, the then
     2009         TWED - Sri.          Executive Engineer (FAC), Tribal Welfare,
                  Ch.Chinna            Utnoor has failed to remit the seignorage
                  Babu,       I/C.     charges amounting to Rs.12,30,495/- (for the
                  Executive            period from 30.04.2004 to 31.03.2005)
                  Engineer,            recovered from the work bills of executing
                  Paderu,      The     agencies under various grants during his
                  Then Executive       incumbency period from 30.04.2004 to
                  Engineer (FAC),      18.05.2005 to the consolidated fund of the
                  Tribal Welfare,      State, amounting to violation of Rule 26 (ii)
                  Division Utnoor      A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966,
                  - Departmental       G.O. Ms. No. 404, Industries & Commerce
                  Proceedings          (Mines I) Department, dated 05.10.94, Para
                  under Rule 20        33 of A.P. Public Works Department Code,
                  of      A.P.C.S.     Para 83 of A.P. Public Works Accounts Code,
                  (CC&A)    Rules      Treasure Rule 7 of A.P. Treasury Code and
                  1991 - Article of    Rule 3 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules
                  Charges         -    1964.
                  Issued.





5.   5930/TW      Public Servants     Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency
     .Ser.II.1/   - Tribal Welfare    as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal
     2010         Engineering         Welfare, Paderu has committed certain
                  Department      -   irregularities in adoption of rate for G.S.B. in
                  G.A.        (V&E)   the road works in Tribal Welfare Department
                  Report - Certain    of Visakhapatnam District and to super
                  irregularities in   checked        the      measurements        and
                  adoption of rate    recommended for payment for the portion of

for G.S.B. in the the work not executed in the field causing a road works in loss of Rs.2,39,091/- to Government. Hence, Tribal Welfare the charge.

                  Department of
                  Visakhapatnam
                  District        -
                  Vigilance report
                  received        -
                  Requested      to
                  take
                  Disciplinary
                  Action          -
                  Regarding.

6.   9038/TW      Public Servants Charge: I
     .Ser.II.1/   - Tribal Welfare
     2010         Engineering        Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency
                  Department      - as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal

Establishment - Welfare, Paderu has committed the following Inspection irregularities in execution of the work PL conducted by Road Tajangi Road work under NABARD-X in the ENC T.W. Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu. works in the jurisdiction of 1. He has diverted the funds and advances Paderu Division are kept in the bank account for long time.

- Draft Articles For the advances given the Executive of Charges Engineer has not monitored for proper issued - Written adjustment in time. Resulting into Statement of temporary misappropriation of government defence received funds and violation of Circular instructions specific remarks of the Chief Engineer, Tribal Welfare called for. issued in Cir. Memo No. DEE/AE12/6774/94, dated 3.2.1998 and TA4/AEE5/6774/General Circular/94, dated 14.09.2000, Para 168 to 172 of A.P. Public Works Accounts Code and Article 300, 301 & 302 of A.P. Financial Code, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule -3 under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

2. In spite of clear instructions to close the P.D. accounts and introduction of PAO system in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department to pay of all work bills through the concerned PAO, the Executive Engineer has advanced the amount to Deputy Executive Engineer and still running the financial transactions without completely bringing the transactions into the purview of PAO violating the government instructions, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule - 3 under A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

3. In spite of clear cut instructions of Engineer-in-Chief, Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad vide Circular Memo No. C1/3839/08 dated 5/09 to close all advances till March 2009 and to submit the compliance the same was not even communicated by the Executive Engineer to Deputy Executive Engineers for compliance and flouted the instructions resulting into financial irregularity, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule - 3 under A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

4. In the road work, the deviations and alignment, Gradient negotiation requirement are very critical and are absolutely left to the subordinate staff without any guidance or assistance by the Executive Engineer resulting into lapse on the department, as this work was taken up under departmental execution was lingering from last two years, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule - 3 under A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

Charge: 2

Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu has committed the following irregularities in execution of the works of Degree College Hostel for Boys, Degree College Hostel for Girls under RIAD in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu.

1. These works are being completed without any fore-thought about the requirement of the toilets or washing facilities and as such there are no proposals from the Executive Engineer to put these buildings into complete usage. This attitude of the Executive Engineer without having any planning for the water, electricity or drainage clearly speaks volumes about the indifferent attitude and make the department a laughing stock in the public as well as public representatives eyes, which amounts to violation of conduct Rule - 3 under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

Charge: 3

Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu has Committed the following irregularities in execution of the work Marripalem to Jogampeta road under RIAD - XIII under Phase-II in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu.

1. This work was taken up under RIAD - XIII under Phase-II and the progress of the work is at snails pace and it is observed that there was no clear-cut planning with regard to deletion of items, deletion of road length or with regard to requesting for additional funds from appropriate authorities, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule - 3 under A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

Charge:4

Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu has Committed the following irregularities in execution of the works Jogampeta, KD Peta, Y.M. Pakalu in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu.

1. Incorporated administrative sanction for toilets and baths, additional accommodation under CSS: The work is under basement level and the progress is far from satisfactory, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule - 3 under A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

Charge: 5

Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu has Committed the following irregularities in execution of the works "Providing BT surface Road Paderu, Pedabylu: Providing BT surface from Pannela Junction to Lakshmipeta" in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu.

Administrative sanction is of Rs.235.98 lakhs. This is a major road and ghat or ghat like situation and a clear-cut idea with regard to the earth work in transportation of the gravel has to be evolved and it is left to the fate of the subordinate staff and the contractor. No clear-cut direction was given by the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer was directed to have thorough understanding of the work, incorporate all the provisions and deviations that may arise and a clear cut proposal has to be brought to the notice of the Engineer-in-chief, within a fortnight's time, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule - 3 under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

Charge: 6

Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, during his incumbency as incharge Executive Engineer, Tribal Welfare, Paderu, do not have control over his subordinate staff in the division office and has left the division office to the DAO/Advisor or

the Manager completely and committed the following irregularities in Tribal Welfare Division, Paderu.

1. A Divisional Accounts Officer has been appointed on contract basis on the instructions or permission from the Project Officer and literally the DAO/Advisor or the Manager is running the entire office and the Executive Engineer and other staffs are mere spectators.

2. The Executive Engineer has stopped signing in the Attendance register from September 2008.

3. The Executive Engineer is not signing the bills or tappal and does not have any control over the subordinate staff.

4. The official documents, all the agreements for the works are also being signed by the Executive Engineer without any dates.

5. The Executive Engineer has not submitted any tour diary or journal after July, 2008 resulting into violation of office procedures, which amounts to violation of Conduct Rule - 3 under Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964.

7. 1044/TW G.A. (V&E) That Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, while working as .Ser.II.1/ Deptt. - Executive Engineer (I/c), Visakhapatnam 2009 Verification of District during the years 2008-2009 making Engineering pass order and recommending payments for works items which are not executed. Thus he pertaining to allowed huge loss to the government and Tribal Welfare grossly violated the guidelines issued by the Division, government besides exhibiting scant respect Paderu, VSP towards his official duties in violation of the Dist. Vigilance CC Rules. Hence, the charge.

                  Report received
                  -     Action     -
                  Regarding.


     .Ser.II.1/   (V&E) Dept., -
     2009         Allegation         That Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, while working as
                  against       the Executive      Engineer    (I/c),   Paderu,
                  Engineering        Visakhapatnam District during the years

officials (a) in 2007-2008, 2008-2009 making payment to laying road from the firm without any Technical sanction PL R&B road to estimates against the Administrative Sanction Thajangi under accorded by PO, ITDA.

                  NABARD         (b)

                  repairs to tribal

That Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, while working as museum at Executive Engineer (I/c), Paderu, Araku valley - Visakhapatnam District during the years Vigilance Report 2007-2008, 2008-2009 releasing advance

- Regarding. payments and submitted the vouchers / bills

to PO, ITDA without scrutinizing or making pass order.

That Sri. Ch.Chinna Babu, while working as Executive Engineer (I/c), Paderu, Visakhapatnam District during the years 2007-2008, 2008-2009 for submitting the .....

12) Insofar as Case No. 9508/TW.Ser.II.1/2000 is

concerned, the Petitioner submitted an explanation to the

charges and matter was referred to Commissioner of

Enquiries, who completed the enquiry and submitted the

report to the Government vide letter dated 31.08.2002.

Though 18 years have lapsed, till date no orders are passed

by the government.

13) In Case No. 13706/TW.Ser.II.1/2001, the matter was

referred to Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings, wherein after

an enquiry a report was submitted stating that the

prosecution failed to establish the charge framed against the

Petitioner. A disagreement note was issued on 11.10.2017, to

which the Petitioner has submitted his explanation.

Thereafter, there is no progress in the matter till date.

14) Coming to Case No. 6637/TW.Ser.II.1/2008, the charge

memo is of the year 2008 to which the Petitioner has

submitted an explanation denying the charges. The head of

the department was requested to submit specific remarks to

Government vide Memo dated 29.02.2012, but no report is

submitted to the Government and the matter is still pending.

15) Similarly Case No. 8136/TW.Ser.II.1/2009, Case No.

593/TW.Ser.II.1/2010, Case No. 9038/TW.Ser.II.1/2010 &

Case No. 1044/TW.Ser.II.1/2011, charge memos, dated

31.03.2010, 14.12.2010 and 03.03.2010, respectively, were

issued and accordingly, the Petitioner is said to have

submitted his explanations on 27.04.2011, 09.07.2010 and

05.07.2011, respectively. Thereafter, till date there is no

progress in these cases.

16) Insofar as Case No. 6802/TW.Ser.II.1/2011 is

concerned, the Petitioner submitted an explanation to the

charge memo and a report was called from ENC as per the

memo issued by the Government dated 06.07.2011.

17) These aspects are not seriously disputed by the learned

Government Pleader. But as stated earlier, the plea of the

appellants appears to be that because of bifurcation of the

State, there is delay and since eight proceedings are initiated,

it would be difficult to comply them within the time

prescribed by the learned Single Judge.

18) But, as seen from the record, the division of the State

took place in the year 2014, but the proceedings were

initiated in the year 2000, 2001, 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2011,

respectively, i.e., long prior to the bifurcation of the State. No

explanation is forthcoming as to why these proceedings could

not be completed till date or even after the time given by the

learned Single Judge, to complete the proceedings. Even

assuming that the allegations made in the said proceedings

are grave in nature, but still there has to be some explanation

as to why there is delay in completing the proceedings.

19) In fact, as observed earlier in Case No.

13706/TW.Ser.II.1/2001, though the Tribunal for disciplinary

proceedings held that the prosecution failed to establish the

charges levelled against the Petitioner, a disagreement note

was issued on 11.10.2017, to which the Petitioner has

submitted an explanation, but thereafter, there was no

progress in the case till date. Therefore, the bifurcation of the

State cannot be a ground for not completing the proceedings.

20) The second ground urged by the Appellant's Counsel is

that, there are eight proceedings pending and it would be

difficult to complete the proceedings within the time

prescribed. But, as seen from the record, these proceedings

were initiated in the year 2000 and the last one is in the year

2011. There is no justification for the Appellant's counsel to

contend that the delay in completing the proceedings was due

to number of cases. As stated earlier, these eight proceedings

were initiated against the Petitioner over a period of time and

the last one was in the year 2011. Hence, we hold that the

Appellants have miserably failed to explain the delay in

completing the proceedings and as held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the

delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it, more so

when it is not the case of the Appellants that the Writ

Petitioner was responsible for the delay in conducting the

proceedings.

21) Having regard to the facts in issue and as the delay

remained unexplained, the order under challenge warrants no

interference.

22) Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as

to costs.

23) All the pending miscellaneous applications; if any, are

closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

Dt. 20.03.2021.

SM..

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

W.A. No. 45 of 2021 (Per C. Praveen Kumar, J)

Dt.20.03.2021

SM..