Constitution Of India For The ... vs M.D Tamil Nadu Housing Board
2023 Latest Caselaw 237 AP

         HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

            WRIT PETITION (AT) No.289 of 2021

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"...to call for the records relating to and in connection with the impugned Charge Memo RC.No. D3/11O/2013, dated 19.11.2013 and also charge Memo Rc.No.Al/211/2015-BCW, dated 23.11.2015 issued by the 1st respondent and quash set aside the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant or conclude the same with in the reasonable time in accordance with Rules and accord all service and monitory benefits and pass such other order or orders......."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was

appointed as HWO Gr-II and discharging his duties with

utmost satisfaction of the superiors. While so, on

26.03.2013, a News item was telecasted in NTV News

channel regarding the boarders of government BC Boys

Hostel, Kursawada, who were displaying the plates with

unhygienic food, which goes to show that the petitioner is

not maintaining the Hostel properly and failed to maintain

discipline among the Hostel Boarders. Even though there is

no lapse on the part of the petitioner, he was placed under

suspension vide order dated 26.03.2013. Thereafter, upon

a representation made by the petitioner, the government has

issued Memo No.1546/VIG/A2/2013-1, dated 15.04.2013.

accordingly, the petitioner joined duty in Pathapatnam

integrated Hostel on 20.04.2013. thereafter, a charge memo

was issued to the petitioner vide Memo dated 19.11.2013.

thereafter, the petitioner submitted his explanation denying

all the charges against him.

It is further stated that the petitioner was subjected to

another enquiry on the ground the one L.Ramaiah, Ex-

Sarpanch levelled certain allegations against the petitioner

before Lokayuktha vide complaint petition No.579/2012,

dated 04.03.2012. After conducting enquiry, the Special

Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Amudalavalasa

submitted his report to the 1st respondent holding that the

charges were not held proved. Being not aggrieved by the

said report, the District Collector returned the same to the

E.O with an endorsement that the enquiry is not completed

properly requested to send a rectification report.

Accordingly, another report was also submitted which was

also in favour of the petitioner and no adverse remark made

against the petitioner. Subsequently the HOD addressed a

letter dated 09.09.2015 to the 1st respondent to take

disciplinary action against the petitioner. But so far no

action has been taken by the 1st respondent.

While so, when the complaint petition was pending

before Lokayhuktha another complaint No.4619/2014/B2

was also lodged against the petitioner by one K Krishna and

Nagaraj who claim to be the activists of some association of

Srikakulam. Thereafter, another charge Memo was also

issued to the petitioner vide charge Memo dated 23.11.2015.

Thereafter the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation

dated 18.12.2015 however so far there is no response from

the respondents. Hence, the present writ petition has been

filed.

3. Though this Court vide order dated03.11.2022 has

passed conditional order that the respondents were directed

to comply with the Rule 12(1) of the Writ Rules and also

directed to file counter along with leave petition explaining

the delay causing in filing counter, the respondents did not

comply the order of this Court. Hence, the right to file

counter affidavit is forfeited vide order dated 22.12.2022.

4. Heard Sri K. Asad Ahamed, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader

for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the impugned order which was issued on

19.11.2013 and the second charge memo dated 23.11.2015

are one and the same on identical chares. In the first

charge memo dated 19.11.2013 the enquiry was completed

and enquiry report was submitted which was in favour of

the petitioner. However, there is no finality to the

disciplinary proceedings. Moreover, the 1st respondent has

issued another charge memo on the same ground for which

the enquiry was conducted. He further submitted that the

second charge memo is issued by the respondents without

application of mind and without verifying the records that

too on the very same set of charges. Insofar as the first

charge memo is concerned, the respondents have failed to

pass final orders on the disciplinary proceedings within the

reasonable time even thought the Government issued

instructions to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in

three months in simple cases and 6 months in complicated

cases. The respondents have failed to conclude the

disciplinary proceedings within the time stipulated by the

Government is highly illegal.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that in similar

circumstances this Court has passed order in WP No.21768

of 2021 on 5.7.2022 and requests to pass similar order in

this case also. He has also relied upon a judgment of this

Court in WP No.2826 of 2013, dated 26.04.2013 and also

relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in

P.V Mahadevan vs M.D Tamil Nadu Housing Board1,

wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that the very same

ground has been specifically raised in this appeal before this

Court wherein it is stated that the delay of more than 10

years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of

charge memo would render the departmental proceedings

vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the

inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of

charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the

Indiankanoon.org/doc/1100953

proceedings as made in the writ petition. . 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.

7. On perusing the entire material available on record

and on hearing the submissions of both the learned

counsels, it is made clear that the inquiry is completed and

awaiting for orders from the Government since 2015. It is

the duty of the respondents to conclude the proceedings

within stipulated time against the charges on the petitioner.

But the respondents failed to do so and further there is no

clarity with regard to conclusion of proceedings and when it

will be completed by the respondents, for which no answer

from their end. Under these circumstances the respondent

cannot stop the consequential benefits of the petitioner.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and following the decision cited supra, this Court

inclined to allow the writ petition, while declaring the charge

Memo Rc No.D3/110/2013, dated 19.11.2013 and also the

charge Memo Rc No.A1/211/2015/BCW dated 23.11.2015

issued by the 1st respondent, as illegal and arbitrary,

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting

aside the impugned Charge Memos issued by the 1st

respondent in Rc No.D3/110/2013, dated 19.11.2013 and

also in Rc. No.A1/211/2015/BCW, dated 23.11.2015. The

respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary

proceedings against the petitioner within reasonable time in

accordance with Rules and also directing the respondents to

release all consequential benefits to him, as per his

entitlement, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : 19 -01-2023 Gvl

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION (AT) No.289 of 2021

Date : 19 .01.2023

Gvl