V.C.Obulesu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4724 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                WRIT PETITION No. 23224 of 2021

ORDER:

Heard Mr. S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for respondent

Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5, and Mr. P.C. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

the 4th respondent.

2. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the

respondents in keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending against the

petitioner since 2015 in respect of the allegations relating to the year

2011-2012 without finalising and releasing 80% of the gratuity and

encashment of earned leave and other pensionary benefits due to the

petitioner as per proviso to Rule 52 (1) of the A. P. Revised Pension

Rules (for short 'the Pension Rules') as well as G.O.Rt.No.1097

dated 22.06.2000 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, unconstitutional and

contrary to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as

the Hon'ble High Courts.

3. During the year 2015, while the petitioner was working as a Bill

Collector in Nandyal Municipality, he was served with a Charge Memo

vide G.O.Rt.No.466 dated 29.06.2015 wherein it was alleged that the

petitioner committed irregularities in respect of property tax by entering

lesser measurements in online than the actual measurements for the

assessment year 2011-2012. The petitioner submitted his explanation

on 27.08.2015 denying the charges levelled against him. Instead of

NJS,J W.P.No.23224_2021

considering the explanation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent

appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer for conducting

enquiry in the year 2016. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report in

the year 2017, but no final orders were passed. In the meanwhile, the

petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant and retired from service on

30.06.2019. The respondents have fixed provisional pension, but not

released the gratuity and other benefits as per proviso to Rule 52 (1) of

the Pension Rules as well as G.O.Rt.No.1097 dated 22.06.2000. As the

respondents are not releasing the pensionary benefits due to the

petitioner on the premise that the disciplinary proceedings are pending,

the present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges

levelled against the petitioner relates back to the year 2011-2012 and

pursuant to the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner, suitable

explanation/reply was submitted as long back as on 27.08.2015 and

thereafter, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry, submitted a

report on 29.06.2017, for which the petitioner submitted further

explanation on 30.10.2017 denying the findings of the Enquiry Officer.

He submits that though more than four years have elapsed, the

respondents have not passed any final orders till date, as a result of the

same, the petitioner is deprived of his retirement benefits. He submits

that as per proviso to Rule 52 (1) of the Pension Rules, the petitioner is

entitled to gratuity upto 80%, as no final orders were passed on the

disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

NJS,J W.P.No.23224_2021

i) The learned counsel submits that the delay in concluding the

disciplinary proceedings is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.

He submits that the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings

is totally attributable to the respondents. The learned counsel also

submits that in the light of the expression of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Limited Vs. Jitendra

Pd. Sing, reported in 2001 (10) SCC 530, and M. V. Bijalani Vs.

Union of India, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88, as also the judgment of a

Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in D. Srinivas Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh,

reported in 2013 (4) ALT 1, the proceedings impugned in the writ

petition are liable to be set aside, on the ground of inordinate delay in

concluding the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel also

places reliance on a latest judgment rendered by a learned Judge of this

Court in W.P.No.3421 of 2021 dated 19.03.2021.

5. Learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel

have not disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner with regard to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings

initiated against the petitioner. However, the Government Pleader for

Services-IV placed on record a copy of Memo No.10951/VIG.III/2014

dated 02.11.2021 wherein it was mentioned that the Government

provisionally decided to impose penalties/dropping of further action

against the charged Officers/petitioners referred to therein.

NJS,J W.P.No.23224_2021

6. A reading of the said Memo dated 02.11.2021 goes to show that

before imposing major penalty against the delinquent officers, the

Government vide letter dated 07.05.2018 requested the APPSC to give

their concurrence and in reply to the same, the APPSC vide letter

dated 10.08.2018 requested the Government to furnish certain

information along with check-list to the Commission for their

concurrence to impose major penalty on the delinquent officers.

Further, on the request of the Secretary, APPSC, the Government vide

Memo dated 19.11.2018 requested the CDMA, Guntur, to furnish

check-list and required information for imposing major penalty against

the delinquent officers. In view of the said Memo dated 02.11.2021,

the learned Government Pleader submits that the respondents, after

receipt of the required information, would conclude the final

disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months. Though the

contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the

strength of the judgments relied on by him merit consideration, in view

of the Memo referred to above, this Court is inclined to dispose of the

writ petition with a direction to the respondents to conclude the final

disciplinary proceedings, within a period of two months from today. In

the event, the same are not concluded within the stipulated time, the

Charge Memo issued to the petitioner shall stand quashed.

7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

NJS,J W.P.No.23224_2021

8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand disposed of.

______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 19th November, 2021 cbs

NJS,J W.P.No.23224_2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION No.23224 of 2021

19th November, 2021 cbs