P.Reddeppa vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2023 Latest Caselaw 5351 AP

 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

             WRIT PETITION No. 21143 OF 2021


ORAL ORDER:


    Heard Sri Harinath Reddy Somagutta, learned Counsel for

the Writ Petitioner; Sri V. Jagadeesh, learned Counsel appearing

on behalf of Ms. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi, learned Counsel for the

Respondent No.2 and Sri Y.B. Ramesh, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the

Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under:

"......to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings vide Rc.No.A4/2591/2008, Dt.13.04.2011 on the file of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, against the G.O. Ms. No. 679 Dated: 01-11-2008 and also against the orders of Hon'ble High court of A.P passed in WP.No.2826/2013 dt. 26.04.2013 and set aside the same on the ground of delay and latches alone and consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO and pass such other orders or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. The case of the Writ Petitioner, as submitted by the

learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, is that while the Writ

Petitioner was working as Office Superintendent in the Office of

the M.P.D.O, MPP, Talupula, Anantapur District, the Writ

Petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice dated

22.05.2008 (Ex.P.4) stating that there are supervisory and

monitoring lapses on the part of the Writ Petitioner; that on

03.08.2009, F.I.R.No.60 of 2009 dated 03.08.2009 was

registered under Sections 409, 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code on the allegation of certain irregularities in the

implementation of Nation Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

(NREGS); that, thereafter, a Charge Memo bearing

Rc.No.A4/2591/2008 dated 13.04.2011 was issued by the

Respondent No.3 (Ex.P.1) and the Writ Petitioner has submitted

his Explanation on 09.06.2011 (Ex.P.3).

4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would also

submit that, thereafter, several Notices were issued by the

Official Respondents to attend the Enquiry (07.01.2011;

24.01.2011; 25.06.2011; 15.09.2011; 12.10.2011; 22.06.2012

and again on 09.10.2012) (Ex.P.5). After having awaited for a

long period without there being any conclusion, the Writ

Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ

Petition on 13.09.2021 seeking to quash the said Proceedings

by placing reliance on the Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the State of A.P Vs. N. Radhakishan (1998 (4)

SCC 154); P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board

(2005 (6) 636); and the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.2826 of 2013 dated

26.04.2023.

5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the

attention of this Court to Para No.19 in the State of A.P Vs. N.

Radhakishan (1998 (4) SCC 154). The said Para No.19 is

usefully extracted hereunder:

"19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. 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 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. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations."

6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the

attention of this Court to Para No.11 in the P.V. Mahadevan

Vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board (2005 (6) 636). The said Para

No.11 is usefully extracted hereunder:

"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."

7. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also drawn

the attention to the Judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court in D. Srinivas Vs. The Govt. of A.P and

Others in W.P.No.2826 of 2013 dated 26.04.2013. Learned

Counsel placed reliance on Para Nos.15, 16 and 17. These

Paragraphs deals with the delay with reference to various

Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court (mentioned

supra). The said Para Nos.15, 16 and 17 are usefully extracted

hereunder:

"15. This Court is of the view that the defence of the respondents on the allegation of abnormal delay

raised by the petitioner is not satisfactory. Except administrative reasons, no other reason is indicated which contributed to delay in disciplinary proceedings. In the case of M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India (2 supra) while considering the plea of initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"The Tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into consideration that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years and they continued for a period of seven years and, thus, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after such a long time evidently prejudiced the delinquent officer."

16. In the case of P.V. Mahadevan (3 supra) the inordinate delay of ten years in initiating and completing enquiry was found fault by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding that delinquent employee has already suffered enough on account of disciplinary proceedings. On the said ground, charge memo itself was quashed.

17. Further, in the case of Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabash Chandra Mirdha [4] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that delay in initiating or concluding enquiry proceedings causes prejudice to the delinquent; as such the same is also a ground for quashing the charge itself."

8. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner also drawn the

attention of this Court to the G.O.Ms.No.679 GENERAL

ADMINISTRATION (SERVICES-C) DEPARTMENT dated

01.11.2008 to submit that all the Departments were informed

through the G.O that the Disciplinary Proceedings shall be

concluded within a period of six months.

9. Sri V. Jagadeesh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf

of Ms. B.V. Aparna Lakshmi, learned Counsel for the

Respondent No.2 submits that the Departmental Proceedings

did not progress on account of the pending criminal

proceedings. He submits that the police have filed Charge Sheet

in the year 2010, and therefore, the Charge Sheet filed in the

Magistrate Court, got misplaced. Learned Counsel would

submit that this is the reason as to why the Proceedings could

not progress further and that while the criminal cases are

pending, the Departmental action cannot be initiated.

10. Having considered the rival submissions of both the

Counsel, this Court has noticed that the Respondents have not

filed the Counter Affidavit. The status in the website would

indicate that the Counter Affidavit that was filed on 02.01.2023

has been returned for curing the defects immediately thereafter,

and that no steps were taken to cure the defects in the Counter

Affidavit and place the same on record.

11. The facts herein as regards the Departmental

Proceedings are concerned are not in dispute. The Writ

Petitioner was initially served with a Show Cause Notice dated

22.05.2008; that on 03.08.2009 F.I.R.No.60 of 2009 was

registered under various Sections of Indian Penal Code; that,

thereafter, on 13.04.2011 a Charge Memo was issued

containing as many as 34 Charges against the Writ Petitioner;

that the Writ Petitioner has submitted his Explanation on

09.06.2011; that though the Writ Petitioner was served with

several Notices to attend the Enquiry, the Enquiry could not be

proceeded, for the reasons best known to the Respondents.

12. The Judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the

Writ Petitioner would clearly indicate that keeping the

Departmental Proceedings pending for a long time is not in the

public interest as well as even in the interest of the employee

concerned. Apparently, the Official Respondents slept over the

Enquiry. In such cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere

pendency of the Departmental Proceedings over a long period of

time without any explanation itself can be sole ground for

quashing the Departmental Proceedings.

13. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has also

submitted that while the Show Cause Notice was issued way

back on 22.05.2008, the Writ Petitioner would be

superannuated in about 18 months from now.

14. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the Departmental Proceedings initiated

against the Writ Petitioner (Impugned herein) cannot be

sustained. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed, the Impugned

Proceedings bearing Rc.No.A4/2591/2008 dated 13.04.2011

(Ex.P.1) are hereby quashed with a further direction to consider

the case of the Writ Petitioner for further promotion as MPDO in

accordance with law. There shall be no Order as to costs.

15. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand disposed of in

terms of this Order.

__________________________________________ (GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J) Dt: 07.11.2023 JKS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

WRIT PETITION No. 21143 OF 2021

07.11.2023

JKS