The Joint Collector And vs Khaja Masood Ali
2021 Latest Caselaw 4640 Tel

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
                 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

                                  W.A.No.53 of 2018

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

14.06.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.43027 of

2016.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that one Khaja

Masood Ali, during his life time, who was a retired employee

superannuated from Telangana State Civil Supplies Corporation

Limited, came up before this Court for quashment of charge sheet

dated 25.12.2004.              The undisputed facts also reveal that the

charge sheet was issued on 25.12.2004 and no enquiry took place

in the matter pursuant to the issuance of the charge sheet. The

employee was permitted to retire on 31.08.2014. However, as his

retiral dues were not being paid, he came up before this Court for

quashment of the charge sheet and payment of the retiral dues.

The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition, as the

enquiry was not concluded even in the year 2016 i.e., two years

after his retirement.

        Paragraphs 7 to 13 of the order passed by the learned Single

Judge are reproduced as under:-

        "7.      The counsel for respondents also do not dispute the legal

position laid down in Bhagirathi Jena (2 supra) and Dev Prakash Tewari (3 supra) that once an employee retires from service, the proceedings of enquiry lapse in the absence of any specific provision for continuance of the enquiry after retirement.

8. Though the counsel for respondents seeks to blame the petitioner for non-cooperation in the enquiry, such an allegation is not contained in the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent.

9. It is inexplicable why for a period of about 10 years after issuance of charge-memo, the respondents could not proceed with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

10. In this view of the matter, and having regard to the above legal position, the impugned charge-memo dt.25.12.2004 of the 5th respondent is declared illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and the same is accordingly quashed.

11. The respondent nos.2 to 5 are directed to release the retrial benefits of petitioner forthwith with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of retirement till the date of payment.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with the above directions. No order as to costs.

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed."

The undisputed facts also reveal that during the pendency of

the writ appeal, Khaja Masood Ali expired and now, the widow and

the children are on record as legal representatives.

In the considered opinion of this Court, as the Corporation

did not complete the enquiry within reasonable time, and also

keeping in view the fact that the employee is no longer alive and

the widow and the children will be receiving the terminal dues, this

Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed

by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has given a

categorical finding, in paragraph 7 of the order, that once an

employee retires from service, the proceedings of enquiry lapse in

the absence of any specific provision for continuance of the enquiry

after retirement, and while preferring the writ appeal, no such

provision of law has been brought to the notice of this Court in the

appeal nor in the grounds. Otherwise also, keeping in view the

totality of circumstances of the case, as the employee is no more,

the widow and the children are before us and there was inordinate

delay in concluding the departmental enquiry, this Court does not

find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

Resultantly, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 28.12.2021 JSU