This Writ Petition Is Filed Under ... vs V. Appala Swamy1
2023 Latest Caselaw 3214 AP

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                    WRIT PETITION No. 902 of 2023

ORDER:-

        This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India for declaring the action of the respondents in failing to obtain

the concurrence from APPSC which is mandatory and thereby not

concluding the departmental proceedings initiated against the

petitioner on 31.10.2009, vide G.O.Rt.No.1697 & CAD (Ser.VII) (V&E-

2) Department, though 14 years have lapsed as illegal, arbitrary and

consequently for setting aside/quash the departmental proceedings

initiated against the petitioner on 31.10.2009, on the ground of

abnormal unexplained delay and release all the pension benefits.

2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present writ

petition is as follows:

3. It is the case that, several irregularities and serious lapses were

noticed pertaining to Vamsadhara Project in Srikakulam District,

which had come to the notice of Vigilance & Enquiry Department.

The said Vigilance & Enquiry Department conducted preliminary

enquiries and has recorded its conclusions of huge corruption in

procurement of Screw Gearing Shutters. The officers who were found

responsible in finalizing the price and procurement, in the said

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

enquiry were identified as 34 officers, they were responsible for

submitting ante dated agreements and managing higher rates with a

view to defraud the Government. Based on the said report, 30 in

service officers were found prima facie involved in grave irregularities

and charges were recommended to be proceeded against them. The

petitioner is one among the 34 officers, who is allegedly involved in

the misappropriation /corruption.

4. As a consequence, the Government in due consideration of the

said report, suspended the said officers including the petitioner,

pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the suspension order, the petitioner

filed O.A.No.9126 of 2009, before the Andhra Pradesh Appellate

Tribunal wherein the Tribunal declined to interfere with the

suspension order. The petitioner preferred W.P.No.17751 of 2009,

against the order of the Tribunal and on 26.08.2009, this Court

directed the State to complete the enquiry within a period of three

months. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Court dated

26.08.2009, the State framed six charges against the petitioner and

communicated to him vide GO.Rt.No.1697, dated 31.10.2009. The

petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.12.2009, denying all

the charges and allegations and requested to drop the charges framed

against him.

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

5. The petitioner submits that the Government, appointed a

retired Chief Engineer on 05.04.2010 to conduct enquiry, wherein the

retired Chief Engineer submitted his report and based on the enquiry

report of the retired Chief Engineer, the disciplinary authority

reinstated 13 numbers of AE/AEEs and DEEs vide GO.Rt.Nos.548 to

560 I&CAD SER VII (V&E-II) Dept, dated 20.05.2010. Further the

Government initially appointed Commissioner of Inquiries on

10.01.2011, with a delay of one year one month, actually by which

time the entire disciplinary enquiry should have been completed and

final orders ought to have been passed.

6. It is the case that the petitioner is placed under suspension for

three years four months which is against the service law

Jurisprudence apart from purport of G.O.Ms.NO.679 and ratio laid

down by this Court as well as Apex Court incatina of judgments.

Thereafter, it is submitted that, the Commissioner of Inquiries,

conducted enquiry physically with all the Charged Officers, along

with Presiding Officer, and the Witness Officer between the period

from 16.05.2011 to 04.06.2011 i.e., within 20 days and addressed a

U.O. Note No.f27/COI-SB/2011-3, dated 07.07.2011, to the Principal

Secretary to Government, I&CAD Dept, in which it is stated that the

process of enquiry is completed but in fact, it is totally contrary to the

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

directions of this Court dated 26.08.2009, directions to complete the

disciplinary case within 3 months.

7. The petitioner contends that, further the Government

appointed Sri K. Sahadevareddy as Commissioner of Inquiris vide

GO.Rt.No.403 I&CAD (Ser,VII(V&E-2) Dept, dated 31.03.2012 and

the Commissioner of Inquiries, without conducting any further

enquiry, the Commissioner of Inquiries furnished the enquiry report

after past of one year one month, without even considering the

essence of the physical enquiry conducted in presence of the then

Commissioner of Inquiries, but reported that all the charges framed

against all the Charged Officers as proved.

8. It is submitted that, the disciplinary authority communicated

the inquiry report of the Commissioner of Inquiries to the petitioner

vide Govt. Memo No. 10794/ser. VII(V&E-2)/2009-32 dated

24.05.2013, i.e., after 3½ years duly directing the petitioner to

submit his explanation if any, on the findings of the inquiring

authority to the Government. Accordingly, the petitioner has

submitted his explanation on the final findings of the Commissioner

of Inquiries, to the Government vide Letter dated 24.07.2013. Since

the enquiry was conducted contrary to the procedure as

contemplated under APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991, the Charged Officers

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

submitted a representation on 28.09.2013, requesting the

disciplinary authority not to take any further action basing upon the

irregular enquiry report of Sri K. Sahadeva Reddy, Commissioner of

Inquiries, without verification of the rates issued by the GS, PW Work

Shops Sitanagaram, by any Mechanical experts of the department,

but their request was not considered.

09. Though more than 11 years have been lapsed after issuance of

charge sheet, the respondent authorities have not concluded the

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner even after he was

retired from service on 31.12.2012. Due to pendency of the

disciplinary proceedings and as there was no alternative remedy, the

petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court vide W.P. No.22244 of

2020 with a prayer to set aside the impugned charge memo issued

vide G.O.Rt No.1697, dated 31.10.2009, purely on the grounds of

unexplained delay of 11 years, due to non conclusion of the

disciplinary proceedings.

10. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court on

25.02.2021, the respondent No.1/Government, after deep silence of 7

years after submission of his explanation on the final findings of the

Commissioner of Inquiries' enquiry report, issued show cause notice

to the petitioner vide Government memo No.10794/Vig. II-V&E-

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

2/2009, dated 19.03.2021, with a direction to "show cause as to why

a penalty of (100%) cut in pension permanently shall not be

imposed". The main contention in the writ petition W.P. No. 22244 of

2020 was that there is abnormal unexplained delay by the

respondents at all stages and interestingly even in the show cause

notice the respondents did not venture to explain the reasons.

Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed an Interlocutory Application,

requesting 6 weeks time to pass final orders after obtaining the

concurrence from the APPSC against the petitioner, as it is

mandatory before passing the final orders.

11. Though the show cause notice issued by the respondent No.1 is

'contrary to law' and got issued in a hurried manner to cover up their

lapses, petitioner submitted his explanation with all Rule positions

and facts, duly denying all the charges framed against the petitioner

along with a request to drop all the six charges framed against him,

by exonerating the punishment proposed in the show cause notice as

he has not violated any codal procedures. The other contentions of

the learned counsel is that the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner

are affected in view of the abnormal delay of 14 years in passing the

final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the

petitioner, denied the petitioner from regular pension for all this

period. Hence, requested to allow the writ petition.

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

12. Respondent No.2/Engineer in Chief(Admn.), filed counter-

affidavit, denying material allegations interalia contending that the

Director General, General Administration (Vigilance & Enforcement)

Department in their Vigilance Report No.16 (1363/V&E/EI/2008),

dated 25.03.2009, has submitted that their officials inquired on the

allegations of irregularities and corruption in procurement of Screw

Gearing (SG) Shutters in Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam and made

the following recommendations.

13. Recommendations of the Director General, General

Administration (Vigilance & Enforcement) Department are as follows:-

"I. Instruct the Engineer-in-Chief, I& CAD Department to:

i. Recover an amount of Rs.7,98,75,219/- from the respective firms/execution officials towards the excess payment made by way of recording excess quantities of MS Channels for walkway bridges payment released for RM length though the quoted rate is for 2 channels along with bracings.

ii. Recover an amount of Rs.98,300/- from the agreement concluding authority and the technical Assistant Engineer who took part in processing of tenders and agreement in Tekkali division, towards the excess payment made by adoption of excess rates for bolts & nuts for foundations and MS angle for hand railing with hold fasts, instead of the rates quoted by the firm and also approved by the SE/VDP/SKLM.

iii. Recover an amount of Rs.5,42,39,454/- (Rs.5,24,61,380+ 17,78,074/-) towards shortage of MS chequered sheets of walkway bridges and shortage of SG shutters in Narasannapeta division from officers responsible/contractors as indicated in the abstract of recommendations.

iv. Instruct the departmental officials to adhere scrupulously to the GOS and norms in vogue with regard to estimates tenders and budgetary proposals in the wake of a colossal wrongful loss of Rs. 19,65,38,45/-.

v. Terminate all the 403 number of agreements against which materials are not received so far and for which agreement period is lapsed, hence forth duly following the norms in practice so as to save wrongful loss of about Rs. 13,33,15,185/-.

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

vi. Alert the Chief Engineers, Irrigation & CAD Department, in the state for arriving at realistic rates duly following the SSR for mechanical components and observed data for consumables and labour charges in view of the above serious irregularities...II...III...

IV. Initiate action against the officers (33 numbers) and stamp vendors (2 numbers) as recommended."

14. It is submitted that on the basis of enquiry report, the

Government vide Memo No.10794 Nig.II-V&E-2/2009, dated

19.03.2021, has provisionally decided to impose a penalty of 100%

cut in pension permanently against the petitioner, for the allegations

of irregularities and corruption in procurement of Screw Gearing(SG)

Shutters in Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam under Rule 9 of

APRP(Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules), 1980 and according to

this Rule the State Government reserves the right of withholding or

withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a

specified period.

15. It is submitted that the delay in concluding the disciplinary

proceedings in respect of the petitioner-Sri D.Sudhakara Rao,

Executive Engineer (Retd.), is due to involvement of huge number of

officers in the present issue and misappropriation of crores of

Government money. It is submitted that it will take considerable time

for passing the final orders. It is submitted that the Government have

addressed to APPSC for concurrence in order to finalize the amounts

to be recovered from the Charged Officer and soon after receipt of the

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

orders from the Government and APPSC the disciplinary proceedings

will be concluded and finally, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the

contentions urged in the affidavit, specifically contended that in spite

of completion of enquiry proceedings upon submission of enquiry

report on 16.04.2023, the State did not appear to be serious on

expeditious completion of disciplinary enquiry notwithstanding the

time period fixed for concluding the proceedings.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend

that though 14 years have elapsed and the petitioner has retired from

service and 100% pension cut is proposed to impose upon him, the

State is exhibiting lethargic and leisure attitude towards conclusion

of the proceedings and there was hardly any progress in the

disciplinary enquiry; as such the petitioner is put to mental agony.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

even though this Hon'ble Court specifically directed the respondents

herein in W.P.No.17751 of 2009, dated 26.08.2009, but even after

lapse of 14 years, the same was not concluded for one reason or the

other and without explaining valid reasons for such abnormal delay

is nothing but depriving the petitioner from his Fundamental Rights

as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

Court wherein it is held that the Right of Pension is a Right to

Property as envisaged under article 300(a) of the Constitution of India

and depriving regular pension is nothing but taking away the

livelihood of the petitioner which amounts to in violation of Article 21

of the Constitution of India.

19. He further submits that there is no allegation against the

petitioner either the petitioner not cooperated for investigation or

caused any delay for completion of enquiry/proceedings. In the

absence of such allegation against the petitioner, the abnormal delay

of 14 years for concluding the proceedings should have been

explained in the present impugned show cause notice and he would

also submit that it is a settled principle of law, any abnormal delay in

completion of disciplinary proceedings against any delinquent

employee is nothing but harassment on the part of such delinquent

employee and any abnormal delay without reason and explanation,

liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.

20. He further submits that the respondent No.1 issued G.O's and

Circulars more recent G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, wherein it

is contemplated that any disciplinary enquiry should be completed

within a period of three months. But if the proceedings are

complicated one, it must be within a period of six months, but

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

dehorsing the batch of G.O's and Circulars issued by the respondent

No.1, the disciplinary authority did not complete proceedings even

after lapse of 14 years and even today by way of it's counter-affidavit

urging that to get the approval from the respondent No.1 as well as

APPSC for proposal, punishment is nothing but in utter violation of

Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 as well as G.O's

issued by the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner

relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.11776 and 11779 of

2021, wherein, it is held as follows:

"This Court finds what is argued by Sri M.Vijay Kumar is correct. Delay is clear and is writ large. The case law cited by the learned counsel is also applicable. In P.V.Mahadevan's case (2 supra), there was a delay of 10 years in initiating the action. Relying upon other cases which are referred, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held as follows:

11. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. 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.

As argued by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the non-functioning of a Tribunal at this stage. However, the fact remains that in terms of G.O. Ms.No.679, the case should have finished in a time bound manner. Even otherwise, a series of orders quashing proceedings have been passed by the learned single Judges from September, 2020 onwards till date. Despite the orders being passed and the proceedings being quashed, as a consequence of the order, the respondents have not taken any steps to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings are started also. In the opinion of this Court; this gross inaction on the part of the State' is enough to put an end to the mental agony of the petitioners. Principles of comity urge this Court to follow the earlier orders passed by the learned single Judges."

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on

Judgment of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.11294 of

2013 and batch, dated 25.06.2013, wherein it is held as follows:

"In this case, it is to be noticed that though misconduct was noticed by the ACB authorities after inspecting the check dams during the year 1999-2002, proceedings were initiated against the respondent/applicant in the year 2007 i.efive years after noticing the misconduct. There is no reason for the delay in initiating the proceedings against the respondent/applicant after a lapse of five years. After initiating the proceedings, the first charge memo was issued by the petitioners on 18.07.2007 for which the respondent filed explanation. Even thereafter, no further steps were taken immediately and revised charge memo was issued on 02.09.2010 vide Rc.No.4140/2007-M8. In fact, there is no much variation in substance of both the charge memos, except indicating the misconduct of the respondent resulted in loss of Rs.5,000/- and odd in the revised charge memo. Even as per the explanation for the delay offered by the petitioners before the Tribunal as well as this Court, except the administrative delay and referring to the communication from ACB authorities, no other acceptable reason is forthcoming. It is to be noticed that the State of A.P., in G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 1.11.08, fixed the time frame to complete the inquiry within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases and also there are some provisions in Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, wherein time limit is prescribed for completion of each stage of disciplinary proceedings."

22. On the strength of the judgments referred above, learned

counsel for the petitioner requested to set aside/quash the

proceedings, vide G.O.RT.No.1697 I & CAD (Ser.VII) (V&E-2), dated

31.10.2009.

23. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services III would

submit that serious allegation of irregularities and corruption in

procurement of Screw Gearing Shutters in Vamsadhar Project, to the

tune of several crores are leveled against this petitioner, as he has

allegedly colluded with the contractors and other department

officials. On the basis of written statement of defence, charges were

framed against the petitioner and as per Rule 9 of APRP(Andhra

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

Pradesh Revised Pension Rules), 1980, under which the Government

proposed to withheld 100% pension of the petitioner for the serious

embezzlement of funds, allegations of irregularities and corruption.

24. The learned Government Pleader also relied upon a Judgment

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and

others vs. V. Appala Swamy1, dated 25.01.2007, wherein it is held

as follows:

"12. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefor. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are:

(1) where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee;

(2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee.

Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the inquiry officer.

13. This aspect of the matter is now squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Secy. to Govt., Prohibition & Excise Dept. v. L. Srinivasan; P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India; Registrar, Coop. Societies vSachindra Nath Pandey.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India. That case was decided on its peculiar facts. In that case, even the basic material on which departmental proceedings could be initiated was absent. The departmental proceedings were initiated after 6 years and continued for a period of 7 years. In that fact situation, it was held that the appellant therein was prejudiced.

15. Bijlani, therefore, is not an authority and, in fact, as would appear from the decision in P.D. Agrawal3 for the proposition that only on the ground of delay the entire proceedings can be quashed without considering the other relevant factors therefor."

(2007) 14 SCC 49

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

25. He also relied upon another Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Akhilesh Jha

and another2, dated 06.09.2021, wherein it is held as follows:

"14. On the basis of the above material which has been placed on the record, it was impossible to come to the conclusion that the charge against the first respondent is vague or ambiguous. The charge-sheet, together with the statement of imputations, contains a detailed elaboration of the allegations against the first respondent and does not leave the recipient in a measure of doubt or ambiguity over the nature of the case he is required to answer in the disciplinary enquiry. The finding that the charge is vague is palpably in error. The Tribunal declined to quash the charge-sheet by its initial order dated 28-7-2016. However, by a subsequent order dated 5-1-2018, it proceeded to do exactly what it had declined to do by its previous order. The Tribunal purportedly did so on the basis that prejudice had been caused to the first respondent by the denial of an opportunity for deputation or for promotion as a result of the pendency of the proceedings.

15. The line of reasoning which weighed with the Tribunal is plainly erroneous. The Tribunal would have been justified in directing the expeditious conclusion of the enquiry, but instead, it proceeded to quash the enquiry in its entirety. This, in our view, was clearly impermissible. Every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is being enquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise. Apart from submitting that the first respondent was unable to proceed on deputation or to seek promotion, there is no basis on which it could be concluded that his right to defend himself stands prejudicially affected by a delay of two years in concluding the enquiry. The High Court, therefore, in our view, has clearly failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by simply affirming the judgment of the Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal suffered from basic errors which go to the root of the matter and which have been ignored both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court."

26. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that in view

of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents are

going to complete the disciplinary proceedings as stated above within

a short period, thereby, after getting concurrence from the

respondent No.1 as well as APPSC. At this stage, quashing of entire

charges against the petitioner is detrimental to the public exchequer

(2021) 12 SCC 460:2021 SCC OnLIne SC 696

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

apart from restraining the respondents from recovery of

misappropriated amounts.

27. Learned Government Pleader would submit that as huge

amount of money is misappropriated in this case and as multiple

number of officers are involved in this case, in which the petitioner is

also involved, considerable time is being taken for passing final

orders. Finally, considering the conduct, moral turpitude, dereliction

of duties and violation of codal Rules, the petitioner deserves no

consideration and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

28. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner represented by

learned Senior Counsel and learned Government Pleader appearing

for the respondents.

29. The fact remains that the disciplinary proceedings initiated

against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.1697 I&CAD (Ser.VII)(V&E-2)

Department, dated 31.10.2009, were not concluded till date for one

reason or another. Nearly 14 years were completed for completion of

the subject enquiry which is against the object of the initiation of

disciplinary proceedings as well as terms of the G.O.Ms.No.679

General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008.

Therefore, continuation of disciplinary proceedings nearly even after

one and half decade is nothing but, harassment and causing mental

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

agony to the petitioner herein. The entire defence advanced by the

respondents that huge amount of public money was misappropriated

and as much as 34 officers including petitioner were involved and

due to the said reason much delay was caused, is untenable and

liable to be eradicated on the ground that the disciplinary

proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the rules

framed under a APCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1991 which contemplates a simple procedure by observing principles

of natural justice and charges need not be proved in a strict sense as

required under Court of law.

30. Therefore, the delay caused for completion of proceedings is

nothing but failure to collect and produce cogent and satisfactory

evidence/material to prove guilt against the petitioner. It is also a fact

that this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.17751 of 2009, directed the

respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the

petitioner within a reasonable time as contemplated under

G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department.

Even though the respondents suffered the order, for completion of the

disciplinary proceedings as per timeline, they have not completed the

disciplinary proceedings even after lapse of 14 years which is nothing

but disobedience and utter violation of the orders of this Hon'ble

Court by the respondents without there being any valid reasons. The

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

completion of disciplinary proceedings as per time bound and in

accordance with law is universally recognized principle of human

dignity and Right to speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest

of the Government in the prosecution.

31. The prolonged continuation of disciplinary proceedings is

contrary to the public interest and also contrary to the circulars

issued by the Central Vigilance Commission in which the

Commission specifically directed the authorities concerned to

complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months

or if it is a complicated case within a period of six months. The

Commission as well as the respondent No.1 fixed the timeline as

stated above only to protect the public interest and said prolonged

continuation is nothing but punishment on the part of the delinquent

employee. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that even after lapse of 14 years, the said disciplinary proceedings are

not concluded for one reason or another without there being any

valid reasons and prolonging the disciplinary proceedings thus

causing such abnormal delay is nothing but depriving the petitioner

from enjoying his Fundamental Rights and also, by depriving the

petitioner for getting regular pension which is Right to Property as

envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and as per

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is acceptable and to be

upheld.

32. On perusal of the entire record placed before this Court and the

contentions advanced as well as counter-affidavit of the respondents

that this Court finds that there is no allegation against the petitioner

that the petitioner neither cooperated for investigation nor caused

delay tactics for completing the enquiry. In the absence of any such

allegation on the part of the petitioner, the abnormal delay in

completion of disciplinary proceedings should have been explained in

detail in the impugned show cause notice which is valid and

sustainable. It is a settled principle of law that, any abnormal delay

in completion of the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent

employee is nothing but harassment on the part of the delinquent

employee and any such abnormal delay without there being any valid

reasons and explanation, the delayed proceedings are liable to be

quashed in the interest of justice.

33. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the

petitioner is involved in high volume misappropriation of public funds

and 34 officers including the petitioner were involved from the day of

framing charges and completion of disciplinary proceedings against

all the 34 people is a herculean task for the respondents. Due to the

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

said reason only, the present delay was caused is untenable and not

sustainable. Since the contention is contrary to the object of their

G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department,

dated 01.11.2008 and also ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

as stated supra. The other contention of the learned Government

Pleader is that the abnormal delay in completion of the disciplinary

proceedings in the case on hand is neither intentional nor wanton

but only due to the gravity of the case as explained above and this

abnormal delay in the circumstances cannot be interfered as per the

ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as relied by him are not

applicable in the present case and in the absence of any delay for

non-cooperation by the petitioner and even though there is a specific

direction by this Hon'ble Court as referred supra in the year 2009

itself, for completion of the disciplinary proceedings as per time line

granted.

34. In view of the above analysis and reasons as stated above the

prolonged continuation of disciplinary proceedings for a period of

approximately 14 years and still praying for time for completion of the

said proceedings, even after suffered by the order of this Court and

continuing the proceedings is nothing but colorable exercise of power

and abuse of process of law on the part of the respondents. In the

case on hand, this Hon'ble Court initially granted interim direction

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

not to proceed further pursuant to the show cause notice after prima

facie convinced that the respondents are solely caused the delay, as

such the continuation of disciplinary proceedings with such

abnormal delay are liable to be quashed.

35. Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed, the impugned

proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.1697 I&CAD, dated 31.10.2009, are set

aside. The respondents are further directed to consider releasing all

the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as per his entitlement, within

a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of

this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these

writ petitions shall stand closed.

______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

Date : 26.06.2023 SSN

NV, J W.P. No.902 of 2023

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

WRIT PETITION No. 902 of 2023

Date : 26.06.2023

SSN