Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of Ap vs Dwarapureddy Sudhakara Rao on 23 August, 2024
APHC010518512023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3466]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1050/2023
Between:
The State Of AP and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Dwarapureddy Sudhakara Rao ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. Learned GP for Services - III (AP)
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. Sri.G.Tuhin Kumar
The Court made the following:
//2//
WA.No.1050 OF 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
and
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT APPEAL No.1050 OF 2023
JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Harinath. N) :
The writ appeal is preferred by the State aggrieved by the Order
passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the impugned
proceedings dated 31.10.2009 and further directed release of all
pensionary benefits as entitled to.
2. The respondent was working as Executive Engineer at
Vamsadhara Project from 07.07.2009 and attained the age of
superannuation on 31.12.2012. During the year 1977 GOTTA barrage
was constructed across Vamsadhara River near Gotta Village of Heera
Mandalam, Srikakulam District and left main canal was also
constructed. The shutters of the canal and the barrage required
periodic maintenance. Procurement of the necessary maintenance of
the shutters took place during the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-
09.
3. An enquiry was conducted against the respondent by the
Vigilance and Enforcement Department basing on certain anonymous
petitions. The enquiry report was submitted on 25.03.2009. Basing on
//3//
WA.No.1050 OF 2023
the enquiry report 30 officers including the respondent were
suspended.
4. The respondent filed an O.A. before the Administrative Tribunal
challenging the order of suspension, the Tribunal declined to interfere,
as such the respondent filed WP.No.17751 of 2009 and this Court vide
orders dated 26.08.2009 directed the respondents therein to complete
the enquiry preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of
filing of charge sheet.
5. The respondent was issued a charge sheet dated 31.10.2009
and the respondent submitted his reply on 09.12.2009. The enquiry
was concluded on 07.07.2011. The appellants appointed another
enquiry officer on 31.03.2012 who submitted his report without
conducting any enquiry and the same was communicated to the
respondent on 24.05.2013. The respondent submitted his explanation
on 24.07.2013. Nothing further was heard from the appellants by the
respondent. The respondent filed WP.No.22244 of 2020 and this Court
initially passed interim order, however the writ petition was withdrawn
on 21.04.2022.
6. The learned Single Judge has considered the charges framed in
detail and passed the order under appeal. The learned Single Judge
has observed that there has been inordinate delay in conducting and
concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Considering the same, the
//4//
WA.No.1050 OF 2023
learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the
respondent.
7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the learned
Single Judge and draws the attention of the Court to the Articles of
Charge. It is submitted that the check measurements are conducted by
the Assistant Executive Engineer and not the Deputy Executive
Engineer. It is also submitted that it is permissible under the guidelines
for splitting of work for the contractors and work of less than
Rs.5,00,000/- can be awarded on nomination basis.
8. It is also submitted that even without holding the respondent
guilty of any other charges the punishment of cutting 100% pension is
imposed on the respondent. The learned counsel further submits that
the respondent is made to suffer though none of the charges have
been held to be conclusively proved by the disciplinary authority. In the
absence of the same and on account of inordinate delay caused by the
appellants there is absolutely no error which can be pointed out by the
appellant in the order under appeal. The reliance is placed on the
following judgments. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs.
Prabhash Chandra Mirdha1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
charge sheet cannot generally be a subject matter of challenge as it
2012 (11) SCC 565
//5//
WA.No.1050 OF 2023
does not adversely affects the rights of delinquent unless it is
established that the same has been issued while authority not
competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the
disciplinary proceedings nor the charge sheet can be quashed at an
initial stage as it would be a premature stage deal with the issues.
Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that
proceedings have been initiated at a belated stage or could not be
completed in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to
the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant
factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings. It
is submitted that in the instant case, the enquiry is initiated basing on
unanimous complaints. Reliance is also placed on P.V.Madhavan Vs.
Md.Housing Board2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the
departmental disciplinary proceedings on the ground of inordinate
delay.
9. Considering the submissions of the learned Government Pleader
and the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and after perusing
the record it is evident that the articles of charge were issued soon
after the appellants received some information on the execution of
maintenance works of the shutter gates. The same requires a detailed
enquiry.
2005 (6) SCC 366
//6//
WA.No.1050 OF 2023
10. The enquiry was conducted, however the disciplinary
proceedings remained inconclusive till date. The appellants claim that
for certain period of time, the stay issued by this Court was in
operation, however, even after the writ petition No.22244 of 2020 was
withdrawn, the disciplinary proceedings still remain unconcluded.
11. On the facts of this case, this Court has no hesitation in holding
that the proceedings dated 31.10.2009 could not have been set aside
by the learned Single Judge. As such, the order of the learned Single
Judge is hereby set aside with a direction to the appellants to conclude
the disciplinary proceedings by duly considering the show cause notice
issued, the reply submitted by the respondent preferably within a
period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly,
the writ appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dated 23.08.2024
KGM
//7//
WA.No.1050 OF 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
&
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT APPEAL No.1050 OF 2023
23.08.2024
KGM
