M.Raja Gopal Naidu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4882 AP

      THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

                 Writ Petition No.30383 of 2022
ORDER:

This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction

more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS

declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not

dropping the impugned 6 (six) charge memos of the 1st

respondent vide Memo.No.B3/4372/2008, dated 28.11.2008

(14 years back), Memo No.B3/6807/2008, dated 09.02.2009

(ENC 13 years) and Memo.No.13111/ TW.Ser-II-2/2013-3,

dated 26.05.2014 (8 years), G.O.Rt.No.286 TW.Ser.A2 Dept,

Dated 03.07.2015 (7 years), G.O.Rt.No.510 TW.Ser.A1 Dept,

dated 06.12.2017 (5 years) G.O.Rt.No.447 TW.Ser.A1 Dept,

dated 18.10.2017 (5 years), though the petitioner submitted

his explanation against the charge memos within time and

not taking any action to close the disciplinary cases (though

about 5 to 14 years have been lapsed) is illegal, arbitrary and

violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India

including contrary to judgments of the Honourable Apex Court

of India and also Memo No.889806 /TW.Ser/A1/2019

dt.27.5.2020 of the 1st respondent hence the same are liable

to be set aside and consequently direct the respondent

authorities to drop six (6) charges as the petitioner has not

involved as alleged allegations as mentioned in the charge

memos and not concluding/dropping the enquiries even after

lapse of 14 years, 7 years and 5 years i.e., from the date of

issuance of the charges in view of the facts of the case and

judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in a case of State of

A.P.. Versus N.Radha Krishna reported in 1998 (4) SCC Page

154, 2005 (6) SCC Page 636, and the orders of the

Honourable High Court in W.P.No.1514/2020, dt.3.3.2020

and Memo No.889806/TW.Ser/A1/2019 dt.27.5.2020 of the

1st respondent authority and to pass such..."

2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer

on 21.01.1983 by the Project Officer, ITDA Parvatipuram of

Vizianagarm District and thereafter, in the year 1999, he was

promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer(DEE) and was kept in

full additional charge to the post of Executive Engineer(EE)

ITDA (PTG- CHENCHU), Srisailam from 03.04.2004 to

30.03.2006. Later, the petitioner was promoted as I/c.

Executive Engineer on 01.04.2006 and worked up to

15.08.2007 in Tribal Welfare Division, Srisailam, which consists

of a jurisdiction of 14 districts. While working as in-charge

Superintending Engineer Tribal Welfare Department, he retired

from service on attaining the age of superannuation vide

G.O.RT.No.148 Social Welfare(TW.Ser.A1) Department dated

30.04.2018.

3. While the matter being so, when the petitioner was

working as I/C EE (TW) Srisailam, the department sanctioned

one B.T. Road work from Nellikal to Nellikal Chenchu Colony

and Tribal Welfare Residential School Complex at Tungaturi of

Nalgonda District and after a lapse of 2 years, the Vigilance and

Enforcement (V&E) department verified the works suomotively

and made some remarks and submitted a report in the year

2008. On the basis of the report, 1st respondent framed charges

in the month of November 2008 to which the petitioner

submitted his explanation on 06.07.2009 denying the charges.

The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the rules and

instructions given vide G.O.Ms.No.101, PR&RD Department,

dated 21.03.2000, when a report is received from enquiry

agencies, the concerned department has to conduct verification

or enquiry through the internal quality control wing of the

concerned department to know about the genuineness of the

report in respect of assessment, but, without following such

procedures, the respondent authorities have issued

chargememo and no action has been taken on the explanation

submitted by the petitioner to the chargememo, even after a

laps of 13 years.

4. While the petitioner was working in various

capacities, he was issued charge memos dated 28.11.2008,

09.02.2009, 26.05.2014, 03.07.2015, 06.12.2017 and

18.10.2017, for which the petitioner has submitted his detailed

explanations within the time frame of the said charge memos.

But, in spite of the same, even after a lapse of 14 years of the

said charge memos, no subsequent action has been initiated by

the respondents and because of the pendency of the said charge

memos, though the petitioner is eligible and qualified for being

promoted to the category of Regular Executive Engineer,

Regular Superintending Engineer and further to the post of

Engineer in Chief, his name was not considered for promotion to

any of the above mentioned posts. In the year 2018, the

petitioner got retired and made several representations to the 1st

respondent authorities regarding non-settlement of his

retiremental benefits and requesting to pay all his retiremental

benefits by dropping the charges, taking into consideration the

explanations submitted to the charge memos, but, no orders

have been passed till date.

5. As per G.O.Ms.No.679 (GAD Services-C) dated

01.11.2008, the Government issued instructions for expeditious

competition of enquiries within a time of 3 months in simple

cases and 6 months in complicated cases. The case of the

petitioner is that, though he has submitted his explanations to

the impugned charge memos, even after lapse of 14 years, no

subsequent action has been initiated on the same. Due to the

pendency of the charge memo, though the petitioner is fully

eligible and qualified for being promoted to the category of

Regular Executive Engineer, Regular superintending Engineer

and further to Engineer-in-chief, his name was not considered

for promotion to any of the above-mentioned posts.

6. The petitioner approached this Court in

W.P.No.1514 of 2020 challenging the 8 charge memos and for

non-payment of his retirement benefits, which was disposed of

on 03.03.2020 with the following direction:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported between P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Md.T.N. Housing Board, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the charge memo itself should be quashed on the basis of the delay. At this stage, this Court is not going into the merits of the matter, but this Court feels as the petitioner has retired on superannuation on 30.4.2018 and more than two years approximately passed, he has suffered enough. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay all the eligible retirement benefits of the petitioner including the gratuity without reference to the pendency of the charge memo etc, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order."

7. The 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated

27.05.2020 has informed the Engineer in Chief, Tribal Welfare

that the Government has decided to file an appeal against the

orders of this Court in W.P.No.1514 of 2020 and further

informed him to request this Court to grant a period of six (6)

months time for finalisation of all the charge memos. Against

the orders of learned single Judge in W.P. 1514 of 2020 the

respondent authorities have filed W.A.No.47 of 2021 which was

dismissed on 22.03.2021. But, in spite of the same, the

respondents neither have concluded the disciplinary

proceedings, nor have dropped as per the evidence on record or

even as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

8. The counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment

rendered by the Apex Court in similar circumstances in the case

of State of A.P. v. N. Radha Krishna reported in 1998(4) SCC

154, 2005(6) SCC 636, in respect of disciplinary cases. Also

relied upon the judgment in P.V.Mahadevan v. MD.Tamil

Nadu Housing Board1, wherein it is held as under:

"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

2005(6) SCC 636

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.

12. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs."

9. Heard Sri. K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel

for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-2.

10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was issued

charge memos dated 28.11.2008, 09.02.2009, 26.05.2014,

03.07.2015, 06.12.2017 and 18.10.2017 and the petitioner has

also submitted explanations for the same within the time

stipulated. As no action is being initiated against the said

charge memos, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1514 of 2020 before

this Court, which was disposed of directing the respondents to

pay all the eligible retirement benefits of the petitioner including

the gratuity without reference to the pendency of the charge

memo etc, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the Government

has preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.47 of 2021 which was

dismissed on 22.03.2021. Though the writ appeal preferred by

the Government was dismissed and in spite of there being an

order from this Court, the respondents have failed to pay the

eligible retiremental benefits of the petitioner.

11. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

P.V.Mahadevan v. MD.Tamil Nadu Housing Board (referred

supra), even in the present case, the petitioner has suffered

enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings.

For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure

for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner shall

not suffer.

12. In view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings

were not concluded even after a lapse of 14 years and in view of

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan

v. MD.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, this Court feels it

appropriate to quash all the charge memos issued against the

petitioner and to direct the respondents to pay all the retirement

benefits to the petitioner including the gratuity, without

reference to the pendency of the charge memos, within a period

of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in the present

writ petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

GSS Date:11-10-2023