Heard Mr. S. Jagadish vs Jitendra
2021 Latest Caselaw 4824 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                WRIT PETITION No. 23516 of 2021

ORDER:

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

Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for respondent Nos.1 to

3, 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 the same and depriving the right of the

petitioner for promotion to the next higher cadre, as void, illegal,

arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to various judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts.

3. At present, the petitioner is working as Junior Assistant in the 4th

respondent-Municipality. Earlier, he worked as Bill Collector in the

Nandyal Municipality from 2011 to 2012. While so, he was served with

a Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.467 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 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

NJS,J W.P.No.23516_2021

submitted his report in the year 2017, but the 1st respondent has not

passed final orders so far. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to

approach this Court.

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 right for promotion to the next

higher cadre.

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,

NJS,J W.P.No.23516_2021

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.

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,

NJS,J W.P.No.23516_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.

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

stand disposed of.

______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 24th November, 2021 cbs

NJS,J W.P.No.23516_2021

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

WRIT PETITION No.23516 of 2021

24th November, 2021 cbs