Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y Venkataiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 August, 2024
APHC010367572024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 18689/2024
Between:
Y Venkataiah ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
Heard Sri S.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Services appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
A charge memo vide No.G/1953-1/2021, dated 27.12.2021 (Ex.P1) was
issued against the petitioner on the allegation of misuse and misappropriation
of Government Financial Assistance by Nayeebrahmin Primary Co-operative
Societies in YSR District for the financial year 2015-16. The petitioner
submitted explanation dated 24.01.2022 (Ex.P2). Inquiry officer was appointed
vide Rc.No.G/1953-1/2021, dated 20.05.2022 (Ex.P3). Since the inquiry was
not completed, the Director of B.C. Welfare issued memo No.G/1953/2022,
dated 07.06.2024 (Ex.P4) requesting the inquiry officer to complete the inquiry
within one week. Thereafter, the inquiry officer issued notice dated 14.06.2024
(Ex.P5) directing the petitioner to attend the inquiry scheduled on 21.06.2024
at 10.30 am. The petitioner appeared on that day and again submitted written
explanation dated 21.06.2024 (Ex.P6).
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is
going to be retired on 31.08.2024 on attaining the age of superannuation. He
also would submit that the inquiry officer failed to adhere to the time line
stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) department,
dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C)
Department, dated 12.09.2022. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the
judgments of State of A.P. v. N.Radhakishan1 and P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D.,
T.N. Housing Board2.
The point for consideration is :
"Whether the petitioner makes out prima-facie case for grant of interim
order?"
The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration
(Services-C) department, dated 01.11.2008 and fixed time line to complete the
inquiry. Para No.3 of the said G.O., reads as follows:
"Government direct that the disciplinary cases initiated against the
Government employees shall be completed as expeditiously as possible
and the existing instructions read above shall be adhered to. The
Departments of Secretariat shall review the status position of the pending
disciplinary cases against all the employees with which they are
concerned and submit a note to the Chief Secretary to Government as
per the instructions in force. It is also the responsibility of the inquiring
authorities to complete the inquiry as per the allowed time. The
Competent Authority, after receipt of the inquiry report shall conclude the
(1998) 4 SCC 154
AIR 2006 SC 207
disciplinary proceedings within 6 months of its initiation and in case of
abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, action shall be
initiated against concerned inquiring authority."
In Para No.1 of the said G.O., it was mentioned that the inquiry in normal
case has to be completed within three months and in complicated case within six
months. The Secretaries of departments shall review the status position of the
pending disciplinary cases against all the employees with which they are
concerned have to submit note to the Chief Secretary to Government as per the
instructions in force. It was further mentioned that it is also the responsibility of
the inquiry officer to complete the inquiry as per the allowed time. In case of
abnormal delay in completion of inquiry, disciplinary proceedings will be initiated
against the concerned authority.
The case at hand, charge memo vide No.G/1953-1/2021, dated
27.12.2021 (Ex.P1) was issued against the petitioner and petitioner submitted
explanation on 24.01.2022 (Ex.P2). The inquiry officer was appointed on
20.05.2022 (Ex.P3). The inquiry is not concluded within the time stipulated in
terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) department, dated
01.11.2008. The petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, will be retiring
on 31.08.2024. The Director of B.C. Welfare requested the inquiry officer to
complete the inquiry within one week by addressing memo vide Ex.P4 dated
07.06.2024. The inquiry officer issued notice and directed the petitioner to attend
inquiry on 21.06.2024 and the petitioner attended the inquiry. Despite the
petitioner's attending the inquiry on 21.06.2024, the inquiry is not concluded.
The Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration
(Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 fixing time schedule to expedite the
process of disciplinary cases at various levels. In Clause 9 of the said G.O., it
was stated that three months in case of simple case and six months in case of
complicated cases time line is fixed. It is also further stated about review by
the Secretary to Government regarding disciplinary cases. In Clause 12 of the
G.O., it was mentioned that in case of superannuation of the Charged Officer,
the disciplinary cases shall be completed well within time. Anyone found to
have consciously ignored that fact shall be held accountable for the delay and
may lead to eventual dropping of the proceedings.
Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it
appropriate to suspend the charge memo vide No.G/1953-1/2021, dated
27.12.2021 (Ex.P1) issued against the petitioner, pending further orders.
Accordingly, charge memo vide No.G/1953-1/2021, dated 27.12.2021
(Ex.P1) is hereby suspended.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services seeks time to file
counter affidavit.
List the matter on 30.09.2024.
________________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
TVN
