Telangana High Court
K. Narayana Reddy vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By ... on 25 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P(TR).No. 1983 of 2017
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a declaration
that the action of the respondents in initiating and continuing
the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge Memo
issued in Proceedings No A3/1399/2013 dated 16.04.2013 by
the 3rd respondent and thereby depriving the petitioner,
promotion to the post of Tahsildar as illegal, arbitrary,
erroneous and contrary to the time limit stipulated in
G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008 and Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A)
Rules 1991, for completion of disciplinary proceedings and
consequently to hold that the petitioner is entitled to be
promoted as Tahsildar with all consequential benefits and to
pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ
petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a
Junior Assistant w.e.f. 11.08.1982 and was promoted as Senior
Assistant during the year 1989. While working as such, the
petitioner was posted to work as Senior Assistant in the Office of
the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional
TMD,J
Officer, Chevella Division in the months of June, 2007.
Subsequently, he was promoted and appointed as Deputy
Tahsildar and was posted to work in the office of the Special
Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad,
w.e.f. 17.06.2011 and he was fully eligible and qualified for
promotion to the post of Tahsildar basing on his seniority.
However, vide impugned Charge Memo dated 16.04.2013, the
petitioner along with one another were placed under suspension
alleging that they are responsible for misplacement of a file
bearing No.C/1000/2010, pertaining to the RDO, Chevella and
that the said fact has come to notice upon filing of W.P.No.4770
of 2013 by one Smt. Yousuf Begum. The petitioner explained
that ever since his appointment as Deputy Tahsildar w.e.f.
17.06.2011, he had no occasion to deal with the said file and
even during his tenure as Senior Assistant in the office of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, there was no
entrustment of such file to the petitioner. On the ground of
pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, the petitioner
was not promoted and he retired from service on attaining the
age of superannuation on 30.06.2014. In the meantime, the
petitioner had filed O.A.No.3257 of 2013 and the Tribunal was
pleased to dispose of the said O.A., by an order dated
TMD,J
30.04.2013, directing the petitioner to exhaust alternative
remedy of appeal and subsequently, the petitioner was
reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 09.10.2013 and
the petitioner submitted his explanation denying allegations
leveled against him in the Charge Memo. The disciplinary
proceedings were not concluded and in the meantime, the
petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2014. It is submitted that thereafter,
the petitioner was being paid only the provisional pension and
till the date of hearing of this writ petition, the disciplinary
proceedings have not been concluded. It is submitted that in the
meantime, the disciplinary proceedings against the co-
delinquent Sri.Y.Ramakrishna have been dropped. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
proceedings against the petitioner ought to have been dropped
and the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion
in accordance with the interim order granted by the Tribunal in
O.A.No.2590 of 2014, which is re-numbered as W.P(TR).No.1983
of 2017 on abolition of Tribunal and on transfer of O.A., to the
High Court. He is therefore seeking a direction to close the
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and to pay the
TMD,J
petitioner full pension with interest @ 12% along with the
consequential benefits of promotion to the post of Tahsildar.
3. In support of his contentions, he filed additional
material papers and further he relied upon the following
decisions:
1. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and
Another 1;
2. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N.Radhakishan 2;
3. State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal 3;
4. P.V.Mahadevan Vs. D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board 4;
5. M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India and Others 5;
6. Copy of Order in W.P.No.17569 of 2020,
Dt.11.12.2020.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services, on the
other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter
affidavit and submitted that an enquiry was initiated into the
charges leveled against the petitioner and the disciplinary
proceedings are yet to be concluded. It is submitted that the
inquiry report dated 01.07.2023 was furnished to the petitioner
1 1990 SCC Online SC 467
2 (1998) 4 SCC 154
3 (1995) 2 SCC 570
4 (2005) 6 SCC 636
5 (2006) 5 SCC 88
TMD,J
and the petitioner has also submitted his explanation and the
same was submitted to the Government on 20.11.2024 for
taking further necessary action on the application of the
petitioner for sanction of full pension and that the same is
pending at the Government level and he therefore, prayed that
the writ petition be dismissed.
5. Learned Government Pleader for Services relied
upon the letter i.e., Lr.No.A3/1399/2013, dated 17.12.2024 and
also on the Memo i.e., Memo No.A3/3087/2023, dated
02.01.2024. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and
Another Vs. Akhilesh Jha and Another 6.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record this Court finds that the proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge memo
dated 16.04.2013. The G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, was
issued by the Government directing the respondent authorities
to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three
months in simple cases and within a period of six months in
complicated matters. In this case, in spite of lapse of more than
6 (2021) 12 SCC 460
TMD,J
ten years after issuance of charge memo, after the retirement of
the petitioner from service, the respondents have not concluded
the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the inordinate delay in
the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the proceedings
are liable to be dropped. Further in the case of co-delinquent
Mr.Y.Ramakrishna, the respondents have chosen to drop the
proceedings. The respondents have not given any reasonable
cause for not dropping the proceedings against the petitioner
except stating that an enquiry was conducted and the
Government is yet to take a decision. The Government cannot
be permitted to sit on a file for an infinite period for taking a
decision. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner are
deemed to have been dropped. This view is supported by the
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The decisions relied upon by the learned government pleader
are distinguishable on facts.
7. In view of the same, the Charge Memo dated
16.04.2013 is directed to be dropped and the respondents are
directed to make the payment of balance of the pension to the
petitioner expeditiously i.e., within a period of three (3) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the same is
TMD,J
not paid within the said period, then balance pension shall
carry a simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of expiry
of three months till the date of payment. As regards the notional
promotion to the post of Tahsildar, this Court finds that such a
direction cannot be given after the retirement of the petitioner
as the promotion is subject to DPC proceedings and such DPC
cannot be hold subsequent to the date of retirement.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 25.03.2025
bak
TMD,J
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Dated: 25.03.2025
bak
