A S Jaffer Hussain vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 890 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 890 AP
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

A S Jaffer Hussain vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 February, 2023

Bench: K Manmadha Rao

                                          1


         THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                WRIT PETITION (A.T) No.1300 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief: ".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction to call for the records relating and pertaining to the G.O.Rt.No.176 M.A and U.D Department dated 30.03.2016 where under stoppage of 5 annual grade increment with cumulative effect has been imposed and accordingly set aside the said penalty as illegal, arbitrary without any evidence disproportionate discriminatory and pass such other orders."

2. Heard Mr. K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Government Pleader, Services-IV for the respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner

was working as Junior Assistant in Proddatur Municipality,

Kadapa District, the respondent framed charges against the

petitioner dated 09.03.2005 on allegations, which pertains to the

year of 1999. The petitioner submitted his explanation

18.11.2005, not satisfying the explanation, the Commissioner of

Enquiries conducted enquiry. Basing on the enquiry report, the

Government imposed penalty of stoppage of 5 increments with

cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs. 65,232/-, which is highly

illegal and arbitrary. Therefore inaction of the respondents is

questioned in this writ petition.

4. The respondents failed to comply with the Rule 12(1) of

Writ Rules in filing the counter-affidavit within time. Therefore the

right of filing counter-affidavit by the respondents is forfeited.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated the contents urged in the writ petition and mainly

contended that there is no cogent evidence on record and the

enquiry officer erroneously holding that the charge is proved

against the petitioner without ample evidence. Without there being

any complaint and without there being any evidence the

respondent imposed punishment basing on the enquiry report is

highly illegal and arbitrary.

6. It is further contended that for the very same

irregularities of construction of toilets in Tenali Municipality

similar charges have been framed by the Government and the

concerned Officers have been imposed with censure vide

G.O.Rt.No.1502-1505, dated 19.11.2011. Therefore there is

discrimination in imposing penalty on this ground alone the

impugned order passed against the petitioner is liable to be set

aside.

7. However the respondents neither answer the queries

posed by the petitioner nor filed any counter-affidavit. Therefore

this Court taking into consideration of the fact that in similar

circumstances Tenali Municipality framed charges against alleged

irregularities of construction of toilets in the Municipality, wherein

the Government imposed with censure vide proceedings dated

19.11.2011.

8. 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

(2015) 16 SCC 415

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".

9. Following the decisions cited supra, this Court also

opined that the nature of this writ petition and the punishment

imposed by the Tenali Municipality in similar circumstances is one

and same. Further it is observed that the charges framed against

the petitioner dated 09.03.2005, which pertains to the year 1999.

Therefore there is abnormal delay in framing the charges against

the petitioner after long lapse of 6 years. The enquiry was

conducted and passed impugned order dated 30.03.2016. Again

there is abnormal delay in concluding the proceedings after lapse

of a decade. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot

impose the major penalty against the petitioner. Therefore, the

petitioner is entitled to claim the relief as prayed for.