Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gswssv Prasad vs The State Of A.P., on 4 November, 2024
APHC010481812024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 24852/2024
Between:
1. GSWSSV PRASAD, S/O. BRAHMAYYA (LATE), AGED ABOUT 63
YEARS, OCC ENC (FAC) RETD., TW ENGINEERING DEPT.,
VIJAYAWADA, R/O. H.NO. FLAT NO.201, LEGEND RESIDENCY,
ROAD NO.2, SHANTHINAGAR COLONY, MASAB TANK,
HYDERABAD.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF A P, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL
WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
REVENUE COLONY, LABBIPETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA
DISTRICT.
3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AP, VIJAYAWADA.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the
Respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings pending against
the Petitioner and making inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary
proceedings as illegal, arbitrary discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents
to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner, forthwith, as
per the time schedule fixed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.679 (GAD), dt
01.11.2008, (or) drop the disciplinary proceedings as per the settled Law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the ground of inordinate delay and further
release Pension, Gratuity, CVP and other retirement benefits to the
Petitioner forthwith
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
direct the Respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending
against the Petitioner, forthwith, as per the time schedule fixed by the
Government vide G.O. Rt. No. 679 (GAD), dt: 01.11.2008, by extending the
ratio of the orders in WP No. 1865/2020, dt: 30.01.2020 and as confirmed in
W.A.No. 45/2021, dt: 20.03.2021 and as per the orders in WP.No.7266/2024
dt: 09.07.2024, in favor of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ
petition
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. POODATTU AMARENDER
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES
The Court made the following:
::ORDER:
:
Heard Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri R.S. Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services
appearing for respondents.
2. The Petitioner, retired Engineer-in-Chief (FAC) filed the above writ
petition complaining inaction of respondents in concluding the disciplinary
proceedings pending against him as illegal and arbitrary.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that disciplinary
proceedings, seven in number, initiated against the petitioner and are pending
viz.,
(i) Charge Memo No.5930/TW.SER.II.2/10-1, dated 14.12.2010
(ii) Charge Memo No.13111/TW.SER.II.2/2013-2, dated 26.05.2014
(iii) Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.285 TW (Ser.AI) Department, dated
03.07.2015
(iv) Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.277 TW (Ser.AI) Department, dated
25.07.2016
(V) Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.225 TW (Ser.AI) Department, dated
07.06.2017
(vi) Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.241 TW (Ser.AI) Department, dated
14.06.2017
(vii) Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.503 TW (Ser.AI) Department, dated
06.12.2017
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in respect of the
charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.225 Tribal Welfare (Ser.A1) Department, dated
07.06.2017 the inquiry officer is not appointed. In respect of other charge
memos, the inquiry officers were appointed; however, the inquiry has not been
completed so far. Learned counsel would also submit that Government issued
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 fixing timelines to complete inquiry three and six months in
case of simple and complicated matters. Despite fixing timelines, the inquiry
concerning the above-mentioned charge memos has not been completed so
far.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services on instructions
would submit that the respondents will complete inquiry in terms of
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.
6. As seen from the charge memos filed along with the writ petition
Ex.P's.1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 15 and 19, the petitioner submitted an explanation
immediately. The first charge memo was initiated against the petitioner on
14.10.2010. Even after a lapse of a decade, the inquiry has not been
concluded so far. So also concerning the other charge memos. Pending the
above charge memos petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2021.
7. In W.A.No.45 of 2021, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court upheld
the order of the learned Single Judge wherein the learned Single Judge
directed the respondents to conclude the inquiry within four months from the
date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the proceedings shall
stand quashed. Division Bench considered the judgments in State of Andhra
Pradesh v. N.Radhakishan ((1998) 4 SCC 154) and P.V.Mahadevan v.
MD.T.N.Housing Board ((2005) 6 SCC 636).
8. Given the facts and circumstances of the cases, the writ petition is
disposed of, at the admission stage with the consent of both learned counsel
directing the respondents to conclude the inquiry within three months from the
date of receipt of the copy of the order. It is needless to say that the petitioner
shall cooperate with the inquiry. Delay, if any, on the part of the petitioner, the
respondents can seek an extension of time. If the inquiry is not concluded
within three months after receipt of the order copy, the inquiry proceedings in
respect of charge memos shall stand quashed without reference to any further
orders. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Dated: 04.11.2024
SNI
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.24852 of 2024
Dated: 04.11.2024
SNI
