Telangana High Court
Syed Munavar vs The Commissioner For Panchayat Raj And ... on 23 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION (TR) No.3469 OF 2017
ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.A.No.1594 of 2015 before the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal")
challenging the charge memo No.7334/CPR&RE/E2.Vig/08 dated
24.10.2009 issued by respondent No.1 and to set aside the same and to
pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the O.A.No.1594 of 2015 are
that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant-cum-Bill
Collector in the year 1979 and he was promoted to various posts. It is
submitted that while the petitioner was working as the Divisional
Panchayat Officer, a charge memo dated 24.10.2009 was issued to
him, framing the charge that he has failed (i) to take any action in
stopping the construction of unauthorized/deviated portions of the
building in Nizampet Gram Panchayat, which falls under HUDA, now
HMDA; (ii) to exercise supervision and control over the Extension
Officer (PR &RD) and Panchayat Secretaries within the division; and
(iii) to provide guidance to the Gram Panchayats. It is submitted that
while he was working as the District Panchayat Officer, Rangareddy
wptr_3469_2017
District, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation
on 31.08.2013 and that he has submitted a detailed explanation to the
said charge memo on 23.01.2010 denying the charges against him and
requested to stop further action in the matter. It is further submitted
that an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry in the
matter and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry
Officer on 22.11.2013 and the enquiry was postponed to 28.01.2014
and subsequently, the enquiry was not concluded. In the meantime,
one of the officers, S.M.G. Basha, Divisional Panchayat Officer,
against whom similar proceedings were initiated and the said
proceedings were dropped pursuant to his approaching the Tribunal
for conclusion of the proceedings against him. The Tribunal had
directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and
accordingly, the Government has taken a decision to drop the
proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner has brought the above
factum to the notice of the Enquiry Officer and yet the Enquiry
Officer has proceeded with the enquiry and held the charge against the
petitioner as proved subsequent to the filing of O.A. i.e., in the year
2015. Challenging the charge memo dated 24.10.2009, the petitioner
filed O.A.No.1594 of 2015 before the Tribunal. After completion of
wptr_3469_2017
the enquiry and submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner has
filed M.A.No.1432 of 2016 in O.A.No.1594 of 2015 before the
Tribunal to take enquiry report dated 13.05.2016 on record. After the
abolition of the Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to this Court
and renumbered as W.P.(TR)No.3469 of 2017.
3. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit thereafter
till 06.01.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the incidents
for which the alleged charges have been framed against the petitioner
pertain to the year 2004, and the charge memo was issued in the year
2009 and the enquiry was concluded in the year 2016 and yet no final
orders have been passed by the authorities till date. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further submitted that on retirement of the petitioner,
he was given retirement benefits but the pay revision has not been
extended. The petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents
in not passing any orders on grounds of delay as well as
discrimination. Learned counsel submitted that when in the case of
co-delinquent employee, the charges have been dropped, similar
treatment should have been given to the petitioner as well. Learned
wptr_3469_2017
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has also
submitted his explanation to the enquiry report, but thereafter, no
action has been taken by the authorities. Learned counsel placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of D.Srinivas v.
Government of A.P., Transport, Roads and Buildings (Vig.I) Dept.
and others1 in support of his contentions.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II, however, relied
upon the averments in counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1 and
also the enclosures therewith. This Court finds that in the counter
affidavit, except for mentioning the charges and also reciting as to the
reasons for delay in conducting the enquiry, no reasons are given as to
why differential treatment has been given to the petitioner herein and
why the charges were dropped in the case of co-delinquent officer
Basha, but not in the case of the petitioner. There is also no reference
to any order passed by the disciplinary authorities after the enquiry
report has been submitted.
2013 (4) ALT 1 (D.B.)
wptr_3469_2017
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record, this Court finds that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has
itself issued G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 directing the
authorities to conclude the departmental enquires within three months
in simple cases and within six months in complex cases. In this case,
it is clear that the charge memo itself was issued with a delay of five
years and the enquiry was conducted thereafter after seven years and
in spite of the lapse of nearly nine years, no orders have been passed
by the authorities. Therefore, it is a clear case of delay in taking any
action. Even on going through the charge memo, this Court finds that
there is no act of positive misconduct by the petitioner and the
allegation is of negligence in taking action against the unauthorized
constructions. This Court also finds that a similar charge has been
made against the three other officers and one of the officers has
approached the Tribunal and pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal,
the respondents could not conclude the disciplinary proceedings and
therefore, they have chosen to drop the proceedings. When the
charges are similar and the alleged misconduct is also similar, the
respondents cannot adopt separate yardstick for the petitioner. It is
also noted that the Enquiry Officer, in response to the petitioner's
wptr_3469_2017
submissions that the charges in the case of one of the delinquent
officer have been dropped, has observed that the petitioner also ought
to have approached the Tribunal. This attitude of the Enquiry Officer
is not appreciated and speaks volumes about his apathy to the plight of
the petitioner. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the
opinion that the charges against the petitioner also need to be dropped.
In view of the aforesaid delay as well as the act of discrimination, the
respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders by dropping the
proceedings initiated against the petitioner and granting consequential
benefits to the petitioner. The order shall be passed within a period of
three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand
dismissed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 23.01.2025
PRN
