Telangana High Court
Dr. D.Sri Ram vs The Director Of Public Health And Family ... on 21 December, 2023
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
********
WRIT PETITION NO.19586 OF 2019
Between :
Dr. D.Sriram s/o.D.Sammaiah,
Age: 54 years, occu: Dy.Civil Surgeon,
I/c. District Medical & Health Officer,
Mahabubabad, Maabubabad district.
...Petitioner
and
The Director of Public Health and Family
Welfare Department, State of Telangana,
Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad and another.
.... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 21.12.2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether his lordship wish to see the : Yes
fair copy of the Judgment ?
LNA,J
W.P. No.19586 of 2019
2
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
+WRIT PETITION NO.19586 OF 2019
%21.12.2023
Between:
# Dr. D.Sriram s/o.D.Sammaiah,
Age: 54 years, occu: Dy.Civil Surgeon,
I/c. District Medical & Health Officer,
Mahabubabad, Maabubabad district.
...Petitioner
and
$ The Director of Public Health and Family
Welfare Department, State of Telangana,
Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad and another.
.... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.Satyanarayana Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : Govt.Pleader for School
Education for respondents
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1998 SCC 154; 2005 (6) SCC 636; 2006 (5) SCC 88; 2013 (4) ALT 1 (DB); 2016 (4) ALD
320 (DB); 1990 Supp SCC 738
LNA,J
W.P. No.19586 of 2019
3
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.19586 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed in not considering the case of the
petitioner for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon (General) while
considering the number of juniors from time to time even though
the petitioner is fully eligible, qualified and within the zone of
consideration on the untenable ground that disciplinary
proceedings initiated vide charge memo RC No.035742/VC.III.B/
08-15, dated 06.12.2008, is liable to be set aside on the ground of
inordinate delay and such action is contrary to the instructions
issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.GA (Ser-C) Department,
dated 01.11.2008.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition
are as under:
2.1. Petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon through
direct recruitment w.e.f. 03.09.1994 and had passed all the
necessary departmental tests and his services were regularized and
his promotion was declared satisfactorily in the above said cadre.
Petitioner was promoted as Deputy Civil Surgeon in December
2010 and during his long service, his name was considered as In-
charge District Medical and Health Offcer on 11.10.2016.
LNA,J
Petitioner joined in the said post and discharging his duties
sincerely, without any complaints, except the present alleged
allegations mentioned in the charge memo dated 06.12.2008 for
the issue related to 2002-2007.
2.2. While petitioner was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon at
PHC, Neelikuduru, he was transferred to MGM Hospital, Warangal
on 17.01.2006 and to PHC, Kambalapally of Warangal District on
12.09.2006 and to PHC, Parvathagiri vide proceedings dated
01.08.2009. While he was working at PHC, Parvathagiri, he was
considered for promotion as Deputy Civil Surgeon vide proceedings
dated 02.12.2010. While petitioner was working as Medical Officer
at Kambalapally, 1st respondent initiated departmental proceedings
under Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the Rules,
1991') vide proceedings dated 06.12.2008 for the issue relating to
2002-2007 and the article of charge was framed that Dr. Sriram,
Medical Officer, PHC Kambalapally, has not remitted the unspent
amount of Rs.25,420/- to the DM&HO, Warangal for the years
2002 to 2007 towards F.P. operations and that he failed to
maintain absolute integrity, discipline and devotion to duty and
exhibited behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant and
violated Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and called
explanation from the petitioner.
LNA,J
2.3. Petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 05.05.2009 and
stated that the alleged unspent balance amount of Rs.25,420/-
mentioned in the charge memo was not at all belongs to his
working period at PHC, Kambalapally since he has taken over the
charge as Medical Officer at Kambalapally on 12.09.2006 and that
as on the date, there was no unspent cash balance of FP (Family
Planning) budget and ultimately denied the alleged charge with a
request to drop further proceedings.
2.4. After lapse of more than five years period from the date of
charge memo, one Sri Sanjeeva Rao, Addl.Director was appointed
as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in terms of Rule 20 of
the Rules 1991 and no Presenting Officer was appointed.
Pursuant to the notice from the Enquiry Officer, petitioner
submitted his detailed defense statement and deposed that an
amount of Rs.25,240/- mentioned in charge memo is not
pertaining to his period at PHC, Kambalapally and the same
pertains to the period of his predecessor Dr.L.Venkanna and that
he is no way concerned to the alleged allegations.
2.5. It is further stated that for the same amount and same
hospital, similar charge memo was already issued to his
predecessor i.e., Dr. L.Venkanna. In response to the charge memo,
Dr. Venkanna by accepting his responsibility had remitted the said
LNA,J
amount through D.D.No.313934 dated 13.02.2009 in favour of 1st
respondent and he also addressed letter dated 12.02.2009 to the
1st respondent requesting to drop further action. Despite remitting
the said amount by Dr. Venkanna, the respondents issued charge
memo on the same issue and did not close the issue. Despite
repeated requests of the petitioner, the respondents are not
considering his further promotions.
2.6. The Enquiry Officer without considering the above case,
submitted perverse report and 1st respondent vide letter dated
23.02.2018 called for explanation of the petitioner. Accordingly,
petitioner submitted detailed explanation. However, respondents
did not consider the same till date. It is further submitted that in
seniority list of Deputy Civil Surgeons working under the control of
1st respondent, the name of the petitioner was included at Sl.No.12
and Sl.Nos.13 to 28 were already promoted, ignoring the case of
the petitioner on the sole ground that impugned charge memo is
pending.
2.7. It is further submitted that recently also number of his
juniors were promoted on 19.09.2018 and further case of
Dr.K.Singa Raju who is facing criminal charge was considered for
promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon (General) vide
G.O.Rt.No.305, dated 01.06.2019. However, petitioner is being
LNA,J
discriminated and has not been promoted by referring to the
disciplinary proceedings and charge memo dated 06.12.2008.
Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Despite granting number of adjournments, the respondents
did not choose to file counter. However, the learned Special
Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions
given by the 1st respondent. As per the written instructions, the
Vigilance & Enforcement had taken enquiry with regard to
misappropriation of family planning funds for the years 2002 to
2007, misuse of TA bills, NMBS funds and wrong payments etc.,
at erstwhile Warangal district and submitted report. The
Government vide Memo dated 18.10.2008, initiated action against
the officials i.e., medical officers of 17 institutions, which include
PHC, Kambalapalli. The Commissioner of Health & Family Welfare,
Hyderabad has constituted the Special Evaluation Team (SET) to
evaluate on the allegations of corruption of funds in Family
Planning Operations for the years 2002 to 2007 and the SET has
submitted report to the Commissioner of Health & Family Welfare,
who in turn forwarded the report to the 1st respondent, who is
competent authority to take further necessary action a per CCA
Rules.
3.1. Pursuant to the orders of the Government, the disciplinary
action was initiated against 21 medial officers including the
LNA,J
petitioner herein and one senior assistant duly framing the charges
under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991. The Vigilance & Enforcement
suggested for recovery of an amount of Rs.25,420/- and to launch
the criminal case against the petitioner duly initiating
departmental action. Accordingly, charges were framed against the
petitioner by the 1st respondent vide Memo dated 06.12.2008 and
also the District Medical & Health Officer, Warangal has been
requested to recover the amount and to book a criminal case
against the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted explanation
and on submission of explanation, the Regional Director of Medical
& Health Officer, Warangal was appointed as Inquiry Officer, who
expressed his inability to conduct inquiry.
3.2. Later, the Additional Director (Planning) O/o. Director of
Public Health & Family Welfare, Hyderabad was appointed as
Inquiry Officer, who also expressed his inability stating that strike
of employees during the period of sakala janula samme and
requested to appoint another officer. Therefore, Additional Director
(Lep.) O/o. DPH&FW, Hyderabad has been nominated as Inquiry
Officer, however he too refused to conduct inquiry. Thereafter the
Joint Director (NPCB), O/o. DPH&FW, Hyderabad was appointed,
who also expressed unwillingness to conduct enquiry. Lastly, the
Addl.Director (Admn.) was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct
LNA,J
inquiry and he conducted enquiry and submitted his report, which
was forwarded to the Government.
3.3. The Government vide memo dated 18.01.2016 informed to
furnish the enquiry report individual wise against whom charges
were framed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Rules, 1991. The 1st
respondent on due consideration of the enquiry report came to
conclusion that enquiry officer has not done proper inquiry against
the medical officers and submitted his findings as 'charges proved'
and therefore, the 1st respondent has reappointed the Joint
Director (Epid.) O/o Director of Public Health & Family Welfare,
Hyderabad as Inquiry Officer and the Chief Accounts Officer, O/o.
DPH&FW, Hyderabad has been appointed as Presiding Officer vide
order dated 20.01.2019. However, the Inquiry Officer vide letter
dated 24.05.2022 expressed his inability to conduct inquiry as he
was busy with Covid-19 and requested for exemption from the
duties of Inquiry Officer. He further stated that charges have been
framed against the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings will be
concluded soon after the completion of departmental proceedings
shortly and the charges framed against the charged officers
including the petitioner is still under inquiry.
3.4. It is further contended that sum of Rs.25,420/- has to be
recovered from the charged officer as per the Vigilance and
Enforcement report dated 18.10.2008 and the said amount is not
LNA,J
yet remitted and it is finally contended that Government
considered the petitioner for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon
(General) and accordingly promotion orders were issued vide
G.O.Rt.No.328 HM&FW (VC-1) Department, dated 22.04.2021 and
the petitioner was posted as Additional District Medical and Health
Officer, Mancherial district and he joined duty on 11.06.2021.
4. Heard learned counsel Sri S.Satyanarayana for the
petitioner and the learned Asst.Government Pleader for Services-II.
Consideration:
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is
being harassed for not granting promotion and though he is
eligible and was due to promotion and many of his juniors were
already promoted. Only basing on the alleged charge memo dated
06.12.2008, the respondents deliberately not considering the
explanation submitted by the petitioner that he was not working
with PHC, Kambalapalli at the relevant period i.e., 2002-2007 and
he is no way concerned with the alleged misappropriation of the
family planning funds and respondents have also ignored the fact
of remittance of Rs.25,420/- by Dr. L.Venkanna who was working
as Medical Officer during the relevant period i.e., 2002 to 2007,
vide DD No.313934 date 13.02.2009 and petitioner is being
unnecessarily penalized though he is no way concerned with the
alleged charge.
LNA,J
6. Learned counsel for petitioner referred to G.O.Ms.No.679 GA
(Services.C) Department dated 01.11.2008, as per which, the
authorities were directed to complete the departmental enquiries
within three months in simple cases and within six months in
respect of complicated cases and that alleged charge related to for
the years 2002-2007 and charge memo was issued on 06.12.2008
and till date the enquiry is not yet concluded and it is clear
violation of G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008. He further
submitted that petitioner is being penalized for no fault of him
without considering the material placed before the respondents
and remittance of the alleged amount by the concerned officer i.e.,
Dr. L.Venkanna by way of demand draft.
7. Leaned counsel for petitioner relied upon the following
decisions in support of his contention:
i) State of A.P., vs. N.Radhakishan 1;
ii) P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Corporation 2;
iii) M.V.Bijlani v. Union of India 3;
iv) D.Srinivas v. Govt. of A.P., Transport, Roads and
Buildings (Vig.I) Dept., and others 4;
v) State of Telangana and others vs. L.Galanna and
another 5
1998 SCC 154
2005 (6) SCC 636
2006 (5) SCC 88
2013 (4) ALT 1 (DB)
LNA,J
vi) Order of learned single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.14566 of 2019, dated 25.04.2023 (Dr.M.Kumara
Swamy vs. The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary,
Medical and Health Department, Hyderabad).
8. Per contra, learned Asst. Government Pleader would submit
that petitioner indulged in misappropriation of family planning
funds, which is evident from the report given by the Enquiry
Officer and further submitted that the Enquiry Officer came to
conclusion that charges proved. The departmental proceedings are
not yet completed and basing on the result of departmental
proceedings, the respondents had taken further action. It is also
submitted that petitioner was considered for promotion for the post
of Civil Surgeon (General) and was appointed as Additional
DM&HO, Mancherial district vide G.O.Rt.No.328, dated
22.04.2021 and he jointed said post and discharging his duties.
Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is already redressed and
finally submitted that writ petition fails and liable to be dismissed.
9. Perusal of the record show that the Vigilance and
Enforcement Department conducted enquiry and submitted report
to the Government to take action against officers i.e., Medical
Officers of 17 institutions including PHC, Kambalapalli alleging
misappropriation of family planning funds for the year 2002 to
2007 and misuse of TA Bills, NMBS funds and wrong payments
2016 (4) ALD 320 (DB)
LNA,J
etc. It is relevant to note that Dr. L.Venkanna who was working as
Medial Officer at PHC Kambalapalli during the relevant period i.e.,
2002 to 2007 had remitted the alleged misappropriation amount of
Rs.25,420/- by way of demand draft through his letter dated
12.02.2009. In the said letter, he stated that he was working as
Medical Officer at PHC, Kambalapalli from 1999 to 2006 and
further stated that he had not concentrated on money transactions
due to his busy schedules and left the financial matters entirely to
his senior assistant who was specifically allotted to the PHC for
this purpose. Therefore, he is unaware as to how the discrepancy
had occurred with regard to unspent amount of Rs.25,420/-. It is
further stated that the observations made by the Vigilance and
Enforcement Department, he has remitted an amount of
Rs.25,420/- vide DD No.313934 dated 12.02.2009 in favour of the
Commissioner of Family Welfare, A.P., Hyderabad and finally,
prayed to accept the same and drop further action against him.
10. It is also relevant to note that Head of Special Evaluation
Team and Regional Director, M&H, Services, Zone-VI, Hyderabad
addressed letter dated 30.05.2009 to the Commissioner, Family
Welfare, Hyderabad, by which, had informed the remittance of
unspent Family fund amounts by various medica officers
consequent to evaluation report, which includes amount of
Rs.25,420/- remitted by Dr.L.Venkanna. Notwithstanding the
LNA,J
above letter and alleged remittance of the amount by
Dr.L.Venkanna, charge-memo was issued against Dr.L.Venkanna.
11. Charge memo issued to the petitioner is pursued and the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. As per the
written instructions of the 1st respondent, the Enquiry Officer has
not done proper enquiry and has come to finding the charge
proved. It itself shows that no proper enquiry was conducted and
proceedings are being way back to 2002 to 2007 not being
concluded till date.
12. From the material placed on record, complaints and written
instructions of 1st respondent, it is clear that departmental
proceedings are being pursued against the petitioner without there
being any material and without considering remittance of
misappropriation amount of Rs.25,420/- by Dr.L.Venkanna, who
was working as Medical Officer at PHC, Kambalapalli at the
relevant period i.e., 2002-2007, respondents have not considered
the explanation submitted by the petitioner.
13. In N.Radhakishan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as
under:
"19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined
principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where
there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings.
Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be
LNA,J
terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and
circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that
the court has to take into consideration all the relevant
factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in
the interest of clean and honest administration that the
disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after
delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no
explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a
right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded
expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony
and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily
prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the
proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the
disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature
of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has
occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the
delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could
also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is
serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the
basic principle of administrative justice that an officer
entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties
honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he
deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed.
Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take
their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats
justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it
can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there
is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the
disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance
these two diverse considerations.
20. In the present case we find that without any reference to
records merely on the report of the Director General, Anti-
Corruption Bureau, charges were framed against the
respondent and ten others, all in verbatim and without
particularising the role played by each of the officers charged.
LNA,J
There were four charges against the respondent. With three of
them he was not concerned. He offered explanation regarding
the fourth charge but the disciplinary authority did not
examine the same nor did it choose to appoint any enquiry
officer even assuming that action was validly being initiated
under the 1991 Rules. There is no explanation whatsoever for
delay in concluding the enquiry proceedings all these years.
The case depended on records of the Department only and the
Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau had pointed out that
no witnesses had been examined before he gave his report.
The Enquiry Officers who had been appointed one after the
other had just to examine the records to see if the alleged
deviations and constructions were illegal and unauthorised
and then as to who was responsible for condoning or
approving the same against the bye-laws. It is nobody's case
that the respondent at any stage tried to obstruct or delay the
enquiry proceedings. The Tribunal rightly did not accept the
explanations of the State as to why delay occurred. In fact
there was hardly any explanation worth consideration. In the
circumstances the Tribunal was justified in quashing the
charge memo dated 31-7-1995 and directing the State to
promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC
ignoring memos dated 27-10-1995 and 1-6-1996. The Tribunal
rightly did not quash these two latter memos."
14. In P.V.Mahadevan (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court 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
would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the
LNA,J
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."
15. In M.V.Bijlani (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as
under:
"16. So far as the second charge is concerned, it has not been
shown as to what were the duties of the appellant in terms of
the prescribed rules or otherwise. Furthermore, it has not been
shown either by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate
Authority as to how and in what manner the maintenance of
ACE-8 Register by way of sheets which were found attached to
the estimate file were not appropriate so as to arrive at the
culpability or otherwise of the appellant. The Appellate
Authority in its order stated that the appellant was not
required to prepare ACE-8 Register twice. The appellant might
have prepared another set of register presumably keeping in
view the fact that he was asked to account for the same on the
LNA,J
basis of the materials placed on records. The Tribunal as also
the High Court failed to take into consideration that the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years and they
continued for a period of seven years and, thus, initiation of
the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after
such a long time evidently prejudiced the delinquent officer.
16. In State of M.P. v. Bani Singh 6, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under:
"4. The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the
enquiry are said to have taken place between the years 1975-
77. It is not the case of the department that they were not
aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it
only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was
doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said
irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If
that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have
taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary
proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory
explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo
and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the
departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage."
17. In D.Srinivas (supra), the Division Bench of erstwhile High
Court of A.P., held as under:
"18. Coming to the case on hand, it is to be noticed that the
charge relates to the year 1998 and no steps were taken
immediately on the subject-matter of the charge. Only
pursuant to the complaint lodged against the Executive
Engineer (Electrical) alone before the Upa-Lokayuktha, A.P.,
and basing on the ex parte preliminary enquiry report,
1990 Supp SCC 738
LNA,J
proceedings were initiated which were later dropped.
Thereafter, regular departmental enquiry is conducted and on
one ground or the other the enquiry officers were changed,
which is admitted in the counter-affidavit, stating that delay
is only on account of administrative reasons. Having regard to
the nature of charge and the plea of delay, we are of the
considered view that there is abnormal and unexplained delay
on the part of the disciplinary authority in completing the
enquiry and imposing punishment. Such an action is
contrary to the judgments referred above apart from the
executive instructions issued by the Government itself. Even
for the said reason, the impugned order is liable to be set
aside. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed
and the order dated 02.12.2011 passed in O.A. No. 8278 of
2011 and, further, order dated 04.12.2012 passed in Rev.
M.A. No. 3802 of 2011, by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal,
Hyderabad, is set aside. Consequently, the final order
imposing punishment on the petitioner vide G.O. Rt. No. 734,
Transport, Roads & Buildings (Vig.I) Department dated
28.07.2011 is quashed and it is held that the petitioner is
entitled to all the consequential benefits. No order as to
costs."
18. In L.Galanna (supra), the Division Bench of erstwhile High
Court of A.P., held as under:
"4. On a careful consideration of the respective submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that
in the absence of any explanation whatsoever offered by the
petitioners for their failure to conclude disciplinary proceedings
for a decade, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the
abovementioned cases was rightly applied by the Tribunal in
quashing the disciplinary proceedings. "
LNA,J
19. From the catena of judgments referred to above, it is clear
that continuation of disciplinary proceedings for long time
without any justification or reason would result in grave
injustice, mental agony and distress to the employee and in a
given case, the disciplinary proceedings can be quashed
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
20. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No.679, G.A. (Ser-C) Department,
dated 01.11.2008, the Government directed that the disciplinary
cases initiated against the Government employees shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible i.e., a normal time of 3
months and 6 months is allowed in simple and complicated cases,
respectively. In case of abnormal delay in conducting the
disciplinary proceedings, action shall be initiated against
concerned inquiring authority.
21. In the present case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated
vide charge memo dated 06.12.2008 for the alleged
misappropriation relating to the years 2002-2007, to which
petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 05.02.2009 and
brought to the notice of the respondents that the alleged unspent
amount does not pertain to the period, as he took charge as
Medical Officer, Kambalapalli on 12.09.2006, whereas the issue
relates to the years 2002-2007. After lapse of five years from the
LNA,J
date of charge memo, enquiry officer was appointed, who
submitted report adverse to the petitioner, basing on which
explanation was called for from the petitioner vide letter dated
23.02.2018, to which petitioner submitted explanation. The 1st
respondent came to conclusion that enquiry officer has not done
proper inquiry against the medical officers and submitted his
findings as 'charges proved' and therefore, the 1st respondent had
appointed another officer vide letter dated 20.01.2019. However,
the enquiry officer vide letter dated 24.05.2022 expressed his
inability to conduct inquiry and thus, the departmental
proceedings are not yet concluded.
22. In the present case, the alleged charge related to for the
years 2002-2007 and charge memo was issued on 06.12.2008 and
till date the enquiry is not yet been concluded, which is clear
violation of G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008. The petitioner is
being penalized for no fault of him without considering the
explanation, material placed by him before the respondents and
also remittance of the alleged amount by the concerned officer i.e.,
Dr. L.Venkanna by way of demand draft, who was working during
the relevant period at PHC, Kambalapalli.
Conclusion:
23. In the light of above discussion, facts and legal precedents,
continuation of disciplinary proceedings/enquiry against the
LNA,J
petitioner since 06.12.2008 without there being any progress is
gross abuse and would lead to grave injustice, harassment, mental
agony to the petitioner and also amounts to condemnation of the
person and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are
liable to be set aside/quashed.
24. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed and respondents are
directed to accord notional seniority to the petitioner from the date
he was due and eligible, together with all the monitory benefits and
consequential promotions. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 21.12.2023
Note: L.R. copy to be marked: Yes
(b/o.)
kkm
