G Chenna Kesava Rao vs The State Of Ap
2023 Latest Caselaw 1014 AP

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

              WRIT PETITION No.15831 OF 2021

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is working as Inspector of Police,

filed the above writ petition seeking the following relief:

"... to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the inaction of the respondents in failing to conclude the long pending charge memo issued to me by the 3rd respondent in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.6/2015, which relates to the year 2011, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 01.11.2018, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of specific instructions of the Government and the consistent net of order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court in various Writ Petitions, accordingly set aside the same, as quashed and also to pass such other order or orders ... ."

2. While the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of

Police, Bommuru Police Station, Rajahmundry, the 3rd

respondent issued charge memo in Tribunal Enquiry Case

No.6/2015. The said memo was served on the petitioner

along with enquiry notice dated 13.7.2015. Though the

charge memo is of the year 2015, there is no further progress

in the matter, causing grave prejudice, agony, pain and

suffering to the petitioner. It is also affecting his prospects in

the Department and also causing impediments for his

development in service. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679,

General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated

01.11.2018 fixing time-limit for early completion of

departmental enquiries. In the said G.O., instructions were

issued for expeditious completion of inquiries viz., three

months for simple cases and six months for complicated

cases.

3. Earlier, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.20775 of

2020. The same was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of

this Court on 09.12.2020 observing as follows:

"Following the said Judgments, there shall be a direction to the respondent No.3 to complete the proceedings in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.6 of 2015 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.".

4. Notwithstanding disposal of the above writ petition,

since the enquiry was not concluded, the present writ petition

is filed.

5. Heard Mr.Aneel Kumar Dasari, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Services-I appearing for the respondents.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader brought to the

notice of this Court that the Tribunal for Disciplinary

Proceedings, which was constituted under Section 3 of the

Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings

Tribunal) Act, 1960 was abolished by Ordinance No.6 of

2022, dated 16.8.2022. The same was published in Part IV-

B of the Extraordinary Gazette of Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant

to repeal of the Tribunal, the Government issued

G.O.Ms.No.98, General Administration (Services-E)

Department, dated 18.8.2022 transferring all the cases

pending on the file of the Tribunal for Disciplinary

Proceedings to the Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI), to

continue the pending proceedings and to dispose of by it in

accordance with the statutory rules.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader filed Memo

No.GAD01-SERVOTDPE/3/2022-SER-E, dated 30.9.2022

directing the Secretary, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings,

AP, Hyderabad to hand-over all the files, records, computers,

furniture and also cash available with the Tribunal to the

Registrar, COI, 1st floor, Building No.5, AP Secretariat,

Velagapudi, Guntur District, though proper and safe

transportation including protection from rain, on 01.10.2022.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in fact

the files were transferred to COI.

8. Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an employee,

are to be completed within three months in simple cases and

six months in complicated cases as per G.O.Ms.No.679,

General Administration (Services-C) Department dated

01.11.2008. In the case on hand, the petitioner is facing the

charges of corrupt motive, abuse of official position and

receiving of amount since 2013.

9. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan1, the Hon'ble Apex

Court held as under:

"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 disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the 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 the

1 (1998) 4 SCC 154

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...."

10. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board 2, the

Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

"11. ... .... The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee 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."

11. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash

Chandra Mirdha3, the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that

before the charge sheet is quashed, this Court must consider

the gravity of the charge and all other relevant factors before

coming to the said conclusion.

2 (2005) 6 SCC 636 3 (2012) 11 SCC 565

12. In view of the above expressions, employees cannot

work under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary

proceedings. If no time schedules are fixed for completion of

the disciplinary proceedings, the very purpose of

G.O.Ms.No.679 will be frustrated.

13. It is also not out of place to mention here that petitioner

earlier filed Writ Petition No.20775 of 2020 assailing the

action of the respondent authorities in not concluding the

long pending charge memo in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.6 of

2015. The said writ petition was disposed of on 09.12.2020

with a direction to complete the enquiry within 6 months.

14. In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place in

the year 2011 and the charge memo was issued to the

petitioner in the year 2015. The case itself was registered as

Tribunal Enquiry Case No.6/2015. The Tribunal for

Disciplinary Proceedings was abolished in the year 2022.

There was no progress in the enquiry till abolition of the

Tribunal and now the file is transferred to the COI.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

and in view of the above discussion, the Commissionerate of

Inquiries (fourth respondent) is directed to conclude the

enquiry, within a period of six months from today, failing

which the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide Tribunal

Enquiry Case No.6/2015, which was transferred to the fourth

respondent, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 18.8.2022

shall stand quashed.

16. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed

of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous

petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI February 22, 2023 vasu