Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 757 (AP)

State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. V. V. Satyanarayana Murthv

2023-05-03

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
ORDER : Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. Challenging the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, passed in O.A.No.5945 of 2013 whereby the Tribunal has set aside the charge memo issued to the 1st respondent, dated 07.07.2005 and also the show cause notice, dated 16.03.2015, the State has preferred this Writ Petition. 2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services – II for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 3. The 1st respondent was initially appointed as Agricultural Officer in 1976. While he was working as Assistant Director of Agriculture at Aruku Valley on deputation to Forest Department, allegations of committing certain irregularities in discharging his duties were made against him and other staff members pertaining to soil conservation works. A charge memo was issued on 07.07.2005 and he has submitted his reply to it. Inquiry was ordered against him as the explanation offered by him was not found to be satisfactory. The inquiry concluded in the year 2010 finding him guilty of committing the said irregularities as alleged. As per the inquiry report, only charge-I relating to irregularities is proved and other charges relating to misappropriation of money etc. are held not proved. Even during the pendency of the inquiry, the 1st respondent retired from service on 31.12.2008. After inquiry was concluded in the year 2010, no further steps were taken for imposing penalty against him. It was in the year 2015, after lapse of five years period, show cause notice was issued to him for the purpose of imposing penalty. The 1st respondent challenged the said proceedings before the Tribunal on the ground of severe laches and abnormal delay. 4. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sujata v. Manohar and D.P.Wadwa, 1998 (3) ALD 12 wherein it is held that the disciplinary proceedings have to be conducted without abnormal delay and when the inquiry proceedings are being conducted leisurely and delay has not been explained, the delinquent is not found responsible in any way for the delay, it is justified in quashing the charge memo. Further, the Apex Court directed the State Government to promote the respondent as per the recommendation of the DPC. Further, the Apex Court directed the State Government to promote the respondent as per the recommendation of the DPC. The Tribunal also relied on another judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D.Tamilnadu Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 wherein it is held as follows: “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 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.” 5. Relying on the said ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments, as the Tribunal found that there is abnormal delay in concluding the said proceedings and imposing penalty, has quashed the said charge memo and the show cause notice issued to the 1st respondent. 6. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The charge memo was issued long back in the year 2005 i.e., on 07.07.2005. Thereafter, he retired in the year 2008. Inquiry was concluded after five years in the year 2010. For about five years after conclusion of the inquiry in 2010, no further steps are taken by the Department. Then after lapse of five years, in the year 2015, the show cause notice was issued. Therefore, there is any amount of abnormal delay in issuing the said show cause notice. 7. For about five years after conclusion of the inquiry in 2010, no further steps are taken by the Department. Then after lapse of five years, in the year 2015, the show cause notice was issued. Therefore, there is any amount of abnormal delay in issuing the said show cause notice. 7. Learned Government Pleader made strenuous effort to explain the said delay of five years from 2010 to 2015 saying that as the inquiry report is silent as to how to disburse the amount involved in the issue that clarification was sought for by addressing letters to the concerned and in the said process, the said delay of five years took place. The said explanation is not at all convincing and satisfactory. Even if any such clarification as to how to disburse the amount was sought by addressing letters, there is absolutely no possibility for delay of five years to take place in the said process. Therefore, undoubtedly there is abnormal delay in concluding the proceedings and issuing show cause notice for the purpose of imposing punishment. 8. He would also contend that after this O.A. is filed in the Tribunal, the proposed punishment of 100% cut in the pension is reduced and a proposal to impose only 20% cut in the pension is proposed. Even that is also not a valid ground to set aside the impugned order. When the very proceedings are found to be vitiated on account of inordinate and abnormal delay in concluding the proceedings and imposing punishment, we do not find any valid ground to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal. The act of misconduct is only pertaining to alleged dereliction of duty said to have been committed in discharging the duties is not a grave misconduct. Already he is on tenterhooks because of the inquiry that was initiated against him from 2005 onwards for all this 18 years period of time. Even after his retirement in the year 2008, he is on tenterhooks undergoing agony for a period of 15 years. Therefore, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, we find the impugned order of the Tribunal is justified and it is valid. 9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the Tribunal. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.