Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Sri G.Krishna Rao on 16 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.456, 470, 476, 484 and 485 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
W.A.No.456 of 2021
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Excise), 4th Block, Ground Floor,
Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another.
.. Appellants
versus
G. Dwarakanath, S/o. late Sri Rama Mohan Roy,
Aged 60 years, Retired Assistant, Proh. and Excise
Superintendent, Vijayawada, R/o. Guntur,
State of Andhra Pradesh, and another.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP
for Additional Advocate General- II
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for
Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota
W.A.No.470 of 2021
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Excise), 4th Block, Ground Floor,
Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another.
.. Appellants
versus
G. Dwarakanath, S/o. late Sri Rama Mohan Roy,
Aged 60 years, Retired Assistant, Proh. and Excise
Superintendent, Vijayawada, R/o. Guntur,
State of Andhra Pradesh, and another.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP,
for Additional Advocate General- II
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for
Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota
2 HCJ & NJS, J
W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch
W.A.No.476 of 2021
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue (Excise), 4th Block, Ground Floor,
Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another.
.. Appellants
versus
G. Dwarakanath, S/o. late Sri Rama Mohan Roy,
Aged 60 years, Retired Assistant, Proh. and Excise
Superintendent, Vijayawada, R/o. Guntur,
State of Andhra Pradesh, and another.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP,
for Additional Advocate General- II
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for
Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota
W.A.No.484 of 2021
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary,
Revenue (Excise), 4th Block, Ground Floor,
Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another.
.. Appellants
versus
G. Krishna Rao, S/o. late Sri Venkateswara Rao,
Aged 60 years, Retired P&E Inspector,
R/o. H.No.24-2-675, 2B, Sai Sadan Apparts,
Saraswathi Nagar, Darga Metta,
SPSR Nellore, State of Andhra Pradesh, and another.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP,
for Additional Advocate General- II
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for
Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota
W.A.No.485 of 2021
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary,
Revenue (Excise), 4th Block, Ground Floor,
Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another.
.. Appellants
versus
3 HCJ & NJS, J
W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch
G. Krishna Rao, S/o. late Sri Venkateswara Rao,
Aged 60 years, Retired P&E Inspector,
R/o. H.No.24-2-675, 2B, Sai Sadan Apparts,
Saraswathi Nagar, Darga Metta,
SPSR Nellore, State of Andhra Pradesh, and another.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP,
for Additional Advocate General- II
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for
Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota
COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)
(Dt: 16.09.2021)
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached
to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General-II, appearing for
the appellants and Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel
representing Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota, learned counsel, for
respondent No.1 in all the appeals.
2. Though the appeals arise out of separate orders passed by the
learned single Judge in individual writ petitions, the substratum of the
orders is one and the same. By the orders assailed, the writ petitions
were disposed of directing the respondents therein to conclude the
departmental proceedings pending against the writ petitioners within a
time-frame, failing which it was stated that the Charge Memos issued
against the writ petitioners shall stand quashed.
3. Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals is same, the
appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
4 HCJ & NJS, J
W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch
4. W.A.No.456 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated
25.09.2019 in W.P.No.14567 of 2019, W.A.No.470 of 2021 arises out of a
judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 in W.P.No.14565 of 2019,
W.A.No.476 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.09.2019
in W.P.No.14566 of 2019, W.A.No.484 of 2021 arises out of a judgment
and order dated 25.09.2019 in W.P.No.13476 of 2019 and W.A.No.485 of
2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 in
W.P.No.13520 of 2019.
5. Basic facts of the writ petitions, to the extent relevant for the
purpose of disposal of the present appeals, are noted as under:
(i) Mr. Dwarakanath, the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.14565 of
2019, 14566 of 2019 and 14567 of 2019, had retired from service as
Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent on 31.08.2019. While he
was in service, a Charge Memo dated 21.06.2017 was issued by the
Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, (for short, 'the Tribunal'),
Hyderabad, in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.116 of 2013 alleging that he,
actuated by corrupt movie and in abuse of his official position, had
received bribes/mamools from the liquor syndicate and allowed various
irregularities in respect of certain wine shops. The said allegations relate
to the events that took place between the years 2009 and 2012. Apart
from the aforesaid Charge Memo, he was also issued two more Charge
Memos, vide Charge Memo dated 15.09.2017 in Tribunal Enquiry Case
No.136 of 2013 and Charge Memo dated 27.11.2017 in Tribunal Enquiry
Case No.172 of 2013, on similar nature of allegations pertaining to the
events that took place between the years 2009 and 2012.
5 HCJ & NJS, J
W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch
(ii) Mr. G. Krishna Rao, the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.13476 of
2019 and 13520 of 2019, had retired from service as Prohibition & Excise
Inspector, on 31.01.2019. While he was in service, a Charge Memo dated
17.01.2018 was issued by the Tribunal in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.596 of
2013, alleging that wine syndicates had paid him mamools and that he
had allowed the licence holders to sell the liquor above MRP rates and to
run wine shops beyond the prescribed timings and had also allowed sale
of loose liquor for consumption without licence/permission. The said
allegations relate to the incidents that took place between the years 2008
and 2011. He was also issued a Charge Memo dated 29.11.2018 in
Tribunal Enquiry Case No.457 of 2013 in relation to the events that took
place between the years 2009 to 2012. The allegations in the said
Charge Memo are to the effect that he, actuated by corrupt motive and in
connivance with benamidars, allowed irregularities in respect of certain
wine shops and that he did not take action to control violations in respect
of the affairs of such wine shops and, thereby, abused his official
position.
(iii) As departmental proceedings initiated against the writ
petitioners were not being concluded and pension was not being paid to
them on account of pendency of those proceedings, the writ petitioners
approached this Court by filing respective wit petitions. While
W.P.Nos.14565 of 2019, 14566 of 2019 and 14567 of 2019 were filed by
Mr. Dwarakanath seeking direction for conclusion of the proceedings
initiated against him pursuant to Charge Memos dated 15.09.2017,
21.06.2017 and 27.11.2017, respectively, Mr. G. Krishna Rao had filed
W.P.Nos.13476 of 2019 and 13520 of 2019 in relation to the proceedings
6 HCJ & NJS, J
W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch
initiated against him pursuant to Charge Memos dated 17.01.2018 and
29.11.2018, respectively.
6. Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader appearing for
the appellants, submits that in the nature of the proceedings sought to be
conducted, the learned single Judge ought not to have imposed time
stipulation for conclusion of the departmental proceedings and ought not
to have directed that the Charge Memos shall stand quashed on failure of
conclusion of the enquiry within the time stipulated.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioners, supported the orders of the learned
single Judge and prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
8. On a query of the Court, it is submitted by Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda
that till now, there is no further progress in the proceedings initiated
against the writ petitioners.
9. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, reported in (1998) 4 SCC
154, the Hon'ble Apex Court had observed as follows:
"19. 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 the relevant
factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in
the interest of clean and honest administration that the
7 HCJ & NJS, J
W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch
disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after
delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no
explanation for the delay....."
10. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board,
reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636, the basic facts were as follows: Charge
Memo was issued in the year 2000 against the appellant who was
working as Superintending Engineer in the Tamilnadu Housing Board for
irregularity in issuing a sale deed in 1990. Though the records were very
much available with the respondent Board, no action was taken for about
10 years. Though explanation was put forward by the Board for the
inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceeding stating that the
irregularities came to light in the audit report for the second-half of 1994-
1995, the Apex Court did not find the explanation to be convincing and
the same was construed to be an after-thought. In the above
circumstances, the Apex Court was of the opinion that allowing the
respondent Board to proceed further with the departmental proceeding at
that distance of time would be prejudicial to the appellant.
11. In the instant cases, it is not the case of the appellants that the
delay in conclusion of the departmental proceedings is in view of non-
cooperation of the writ petitioners. It is to be noted that there is long
delay in the institution of departmental proceedings itself and even after
retirement of the writ petitioners from service, no steps are being taken
for conclusion of such proceedings.
12. On due consideration, we find no good ground to interfere with the
orders of the learned single Judge and, accordingly, the writ appeals are
8 HCJ & NJS, J
W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch
dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
IBL
