Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
State Of Ap vs M Raja Gopala Naidu on 22 March, 2021
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, C.Praveen Kumar
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. 47 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/
Respondents
Versus
M. Raja Gopala Naidu, S/o. Late
Akku Naidu, Aged about 61
years, Occ: Superintending
Engineer (Retd.,) Tribal Welfare
Department, Government of
Andhra Pradesh, R/o. Flat No.
203, Bujjulu Towers, Padamata
Lanka, Back side of Eenadu,
Vijayawada, Krishna District.
...Respondent/Writ Petitioner
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Bheema Rao
G.P., for Services -I.
Counsel for Writ Petitioner : Mr.K.Satyanarayana Murthy
Date of hearing : 03.03.2021
Date of pronouncement : 22.03.2021.
JUDGMENT
(Per C. Praveen Kumar, J)
1) Aggrieved by the Order, dated 03.03.2020, passed in
W.P. No.1514 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 proceedings
issued vide charge memos and show-cause notices of the 1st
respondent in Memo No. B3/4372/2008 dated 28.11.2008,
memo No.B3/6807/2008, dated 09.02.2009, notices vide
memo No.14343/TW.Ser.II-2/2006, dated 15.04.2009, memo
No.4373/TW.ser.II-2/2007-3 dated 12.05.2009, and memo
No. 13111/TW.ser.II-2/2013-3 dated 26.05.2014, G.O.Rt.
No.286 TW.Ser.A2 Dept. dated 03.07.2015, G.O.Rt.
No.510.TW (Ser.A1) Dept, dated 06.12.2017, G.O.Rt.
No.447.TW (Ser.A1) Dept, dated 18.10.2017 as illegal,
arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India, and also contrary to the G.O.Ms.
No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms. No. 100 dated
27.06.2018, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and
consequently direct the Respondent authorities to drop
further action on all charges against the Petitioner and pay
retiremental benefits including gratuity of Rs.12.00 lakhs and
other consequential benefits.
3) The factual matrix of the case are as under:
(i) The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Engineer on 21.01.1983 by the Project Officer, ITDA
Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District and later promoted to
the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 1999.
Subsequently, on 01.04.2006 he was promoted as Executive
Engineer as per seniority-cum-meritorious service and
worked in Tribal Welfare Division, Srisailam, up to
15.08.2007.
(ii) After working as In-charge Superintending
Engineer, Tribal Welfare Department, he retired from service
on attaining the age of superannuation vide G.O.Rt. No. 148
Social Welfare (TW.Ser.A1) Department, dated 30.04.2018. It
is stated that, though he retired from service, the 1st
Respondent released only provisional pension of 75% vide
G.O.Rt. No. 276, Social Welfare (TW.Ser) Department, dated
23.08.2018, instead of full pensionary benefits on the ground
of charges and show cause notices pending against him.
(iii) It is stated that, though replies to the two charges
and two show-cause notices were given 10 years prior, and
that for the four charges replies were given one year and five
months ago to the respondent authorities, but no action has
been initiated till date. It is stated that, all the charges / show
cause notices relate to minor procedural lapses and no
financial implications are involved. The G.O.Ms. No. 679,
dated 01.11.2008, was issued to complete enquiries in
respect of disciplinary cases within a period of three / six
months by taking into consideration the nature of charge(s)
i.e., minor/ major, but the same are not completed.
(iv) Relying on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan1 and
P.V. Mahadevan v. MD. T.N. Housing Board2, the counsel
for the Writ Petitioner/Respondent submits that, the charge
memo itself is liable to be quashed in view of inordinate delay
of 10 years in completion of departmental enquiries in the
absence of any explanation by the respondent employer. As
the above judgments squarely covers the case of the Writ
Petitioner and also the guidelines issued under various G.O's
fixing time limit for expeditious completion of enquiries, filed
the writ petition seeking the aforesaid prayer.
(v) Vide Order, dated 03.03.2020, the learned Single
Judge of this court disposed of the Writ Petition holding as
under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported between
P.V.Mahadevan Vs. Md.T.N.Housing Board1, wherein, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the charge memo itself
should be quashed on the basis of the delay. At this
stage, this Court is not going into the merits of the matter,
(1998) 4 SCC 154
(2005) 6 SCC 636
but this Court feels as the petitioner has retired on
superannuation on 30.04.2018 and more than two years
approximately passed, he has suffered enough.
Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1
and 2 to pay all the eligible retirement benefits of the
petitioner including the gratuity without reference to the
pendency of the charge memo etc., within a period of four
(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. No order as to costs."
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 number of
proceedings pending against the Writ Petitioner, the Order of
the learned Single Judge in directing 'the respondents 1 and 2
to pay all the eligible retirement benefits of the petitioner
including the gratuity without reference to the pendency of the
charge memo etc., within a period of four (4) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order' 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. He further pleads that if benefits as
sought for are granted, it would be difficult to recover the
same, if the allegations stand proved in the departmental
proceedings.
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
weeks time has been granted to Respondent No. 1 and 2 to
pay all the eligible retirement benefits of the petitioner
including the gratuity, but till date no effort was made to
comply with the order. According to him, though on the basis
of the report of 1st Respondent, the government framed
charges in November 2008 and the Petitioner submitted his
explanation to the charge memo on 06.07.2009 denying the
charges, till date no orders are passed.
7) The consequences of departmental proceedings being
not completed within a reasonable time came up for
consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in two judgments
referred to above in N. Radhakishan case (1st supra) and
P.V. Mahadevan case (2nd supra).
8) As seen from the order impugned, the learned Single
Judge only directed the authorities to pay the retirement
benefits to which the Petitioner is entitled to, but did not
quash the departmental proceedings on the ground of delay.
The same is not challenged by the delinquent employee.
Having regard to the above, it is now to be seen whether the
authorities were justified in withholding the retirement
benefits.
9) As stated earlier, the ground urged by the Appellants
Counsel is that, there are number of proceedings pending
against the Petitioner and it would be difficult for Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 to pay all the eligible retirement benefits of the
petitioner including the gratuity without reference to the
pendency of the charge memo etc., within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. But, as
seen from the record, these proceedings were initiated in the
year 2008 and the last one is in the year 2017. There is no
justification for the Appellant counsel to contend that the
delay in completing the proceedings was due to number of
cases. As stated earlier, these proceedings were initiated
against the Petitioner over a period of time and the last one
was in the year 2017.
10) Having regard to the law laid down in the two judgments
of the Apex Court, referred to above and as the Appellants
have miserably failed to explain the delay in completing the
proceedings and 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.
11) In view of the Order passed by this court in W.A. No. 45
of 2021, we are of the view that it is a fit case where the Writ
Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as ordered by the learned
Single Judge.
12) Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as
to costs.
13) All the pending miscellaneous applications; if any, are
closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
Dt. 22.03.2021.
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. 47 of 2021
(Per C. Praveen Kumar, J)
Dt. 22.03.2021
SM..
