K.Naseeruddin vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 600 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 600 AP
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K.Naseeruddin vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 3 February, 2023

Bench: K Manmadha Rao

                                       1


        THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

               WRIT PETITION (A.T) No.489 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction to declare the punishment orders in G.O.Ms.No.37 EPS and T Section IV Department, dated 26.03.2016 issued by the 1st respondent against the Article of Charge dated 01.11.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the punishment order in G.O.Ms.No.37 EFS and T Sec.IV Department dated 26.03.2016 as it was barred by limitation and will cause much prejudice to the petitioner and pass such other orders."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader, Services-I for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a

retired Forest Range Officer. The 2nd respondent issued Articles of

Charge against the petitioner vide proceedings dated 01.11.2002

alleging that misappropriated the Government funds to a tune of

Rs. 94,152/- which was done by one Mr. S. Krishna Babu, Deputy

Range Officer, Pathikonda Section. The petitioner also submitted

his explanation on 20.02.2003. Further another DAC is issued by

the 2nd respondent vide proceeding dated 09.12.2009 and framed

articles of Charges alleging that the petitioner had neglected his

duties, which resulted in failure of Bamboo Plantations leading to

infrcutuous expenditure of Rs. 24,02,758/- under Scheme during

2001-02 and 2002-03 and the DAC is disposed of by the 2nd

respondent vide proceedings dated 09.12.2009 awarded with

punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect

for failure of Bamboo Plantations, which is highly illegal and

arbitrary. Therefore inaction of the respondents is questioned in

this writ petition.

4. Per contra, the respondents filed counter-affidavit denying

all material averments made in the affidavit and mainly contended

that the enquiry officer concluded that both the charges are proved

against the petitioner as the petitioner is mainly responsible for

selecting such unsuitable sites for raising bamboo over such large

extent of area without taking up soil test and ascertaining the soil

suitability before planting in the area. Therefore he committed

negligence in discharging duties, which resulted in failure of

Bamboo plantations leading to infrcutuous expenditure of Rs.

24,02,758/-. Hence a penalty of stoppage of one increment with

cumulative effect was imposed against the petitioner vide

proceedings dated 09.12.2009. Therefore, requested to dismiss the

writ petition.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition and mainly

contended that the punishment of DAC will not be enforced as the

punishment was already given to the same charge, hence the same

is liable to be set aside. Further the DAC was issued during the

year 2004 and disposed of during 2015. Therefore there is 11

years took time for disposal an account of lack of interest of

authorities and it is nothing but harassment to the petitioner.

Further draws the attentions of this Court with regard to

G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, wherein it is specifically said

that an enquiry must be concluded within 3 months for normal

charges and within a maximum period of six months for

complicated cases, or else necessary action must be taken on the

disciplinary authority. Hence the respondents and enquiry

authority have violated the rule and did not appoint in any enquiry

officer in concluding the proceedings. Therefore the petitioner is

entitled to claim relief as prayed for.

6. Further this Court passed an order in W.P.No.21768 of

2021, dated 05.07.2022, wherein it was held as follows:

"10. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.2826/2013, dated 26.04.2013 which was passed in consideration of judgments of Apex Court in between "M.V.Bijilani v. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of defence V. Prabash Chandra Misrdha and P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D.Tamil Naidu Housing Board'. Wherein even after the enquiry, a penalty was imposed which was set aside on the ground of delay and latches in initiation of departmental enquiry and in finalization of the same., Relying on the said cases, this Court allowed W.P.No.14685 of 2019, dated 10.02.2020 by setting aside the charge memo on the ground of delay and latches".

So also, as could be seen from the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court

Delhi and Another"1, wherein, the Hon'ble Division Bench held

as follows:

"28. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the considered opinion that every employer (whether State of private) must make sincere endeavour to conclude the departmental enquiry proceedings once initiated against the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it should be concluded within six months as an outer limit., Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings within the time-frame then efforts should be made to conclude within the reasonably extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of inquiry, but not more than a year".

7. Therefore, it is apparent on the face of the record that the

respondents failed to concluding the disciplinary proceedings,

though the allegations attributed against the petitioner for the year

2001-02. Further the petitioner also retired from service, but the

respondents after long elapse of 11 years imposed a punishment of

stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is highly

unsustainable, illegal and arbitrary.

8. Following the decisions cited supra and also catena of

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and also this Court passed

in similar circumstances, this Court inclined to allow the writ

(2015) 16 SCC 415

petition, while declaring the impugned charge memo dated