Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 929 (AP)

Dwarapureddy Sudhakara Rao v. State of AP

2023-06-26

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2023
ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring the action of the respondents in failing to obtain the concurrence from APPSC which is mandatory and thereby not concluding the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 31.10.2009, vide G.O.Rt.No.1697 & CAD (Ser.VII) (V&E- 2) Department, though 14 years have lapsed as illegal, arbitrary and consequently for setting aside/quash the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 31.10.2009, on the ground of abnormal unexplained delay and release all the pension benefits. 2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present writ petition is as follows : 3. It is the case that, several irregularities and serious lapses were noticed pertaining to Vamsadhara Project in Srikakulam District, which had come to the notice of Vigilance & Enquiry Department. The said Vigilance & Enquiry Department conducted preliminary enquiries and has recorded its conclusions of huge corruption in procurement of Screw Gearing Shutters. The officers who were found responsible in finalizing the price and procurement, in the said enquiry were identified as 34 officers, they were responsible for submitting ante dated agreements and managing higher rates with a view to defraud the Government. Based on the said report, 30 in service officers were found prima facie involved in grave irregularities and charges were recommended to be proceeded against them. The petitioner is one among the 34 officers, who is allegedly involved in the misappropriation /corruption. 4. As a consequence, the Government in due consideration of the said report, suspended the said officers including the petitioner, pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the suspension order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.9126 of 2009, before the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal wherein the Tribunal declined to interfere with the suspension order. The petitioner preferred W.P.No.17751 of 2009, against the order of the Tribunal and on 26.08.2009, this Court directed the State to complete the enquiry within a period of three months. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Court dated 26.08.2009, the State framed six charges against the petitioner and communicated to him vide GO.Rt.No.1697, dated 31.10.2009. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.12.2009, denying all the charges and allegations and requested to drop the charges framed against him. 5. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Court dated 26.08.2009, the State framed six charges against the petitioner and communicated to him vide GO.Rt.No.1697, dated 31.10.2009. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.12.2009, denying all the charges and allegations and requested to drop the charges framed against him. 5. The petitioner submits that the Government, appointed a retired Chief Engineer on 05.04.2010 to conduct enquiry, wherein the retired Chief Engineer submitted his report and based on the enquiry report of the retired Chief Engineer, the disciplinary authority reinstated 13 numbers of AE/AEEs and DEEs vide GO.Rt.Nos.548 to 560 I&CAD SER VII (V&E-II) Dept, dated 20.05.2010. Further the Government initially appointed Commissioner of Inquiries on 10.01.2011, with a delay of one year one month, actually by which time the entire disciplinary enquiry should have been completed and final orders ought to have been passed. 6. It is the case that the petitioner is placed under suspension for three years four months which is against the service law Jurisprudence apart from purport of G.O.Ms.NO.679 and ratio laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court incatina of judgments. Thereafter, it is submitted that, the Commissioner of Inquiries, conducted enquiry physically with all the Charged Officers, along with Presiding Officer, and the Witness Officer between the period from 16.05.2011 to 04.06.2011 i.e., within 20 days and addressed a U.O. Note No.f27/COI-SB/2011-3, dated 07.07.2011, to the Principal Secretary to Government, I&CAD Dept, in which it is stated that the process of enquiry is completed but in fact, it is totally contrary to the directions of this Court dated 26.08.2009, directions to complete the disciplinary case within 3 months. 7. The petitioner contends that, further the Government appointed Sri K. Sahadevareddy as Commissioner of Inquiries vide GO.Rt.No.403 I&CAD (Ser, VII(V&E-2) Dept, dated 31.03.2012 and the Commissioner of Inquiries, without conducting any further enquiry, the Commissioner of Inquiries furnished the enquiry report after past of one year one month, without even considering the essence of the physical enquiry conducted in presence of the then Commissioner of Inquiries, but reported that all the charges framed against all the Charged Officers as proved. 8. It is submitted that, the disciplinary authority communicated the inquiry report of the Commissioner of Inquiries to the petitioner vide Govt. Memo No. 10794/ser. 8. It is submitted that, the disciplinary authority communicated the inquiry report of the Commissioner of Inquiries to the petitioner vide Govt. Memo No. 10794/ser. VII(V&E-2)/2009-32 dated 24.05.2013, i.e., after 3½ years duly directing the petitioner to submit his explanation if any, on the findings of the inquiring authority to the Government. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on the final findings of the Commissioner of Inquiries, to the Government vide Letter dated 24.07.2013. Since the enquiry was conducted contrary to the procedure as contemplated under APCS (CC & A) Rules, 1991, the Charged Officers submitted a representation on 28.09.2013, requesting the disciplinary authority not to take any further action basing upon the irregular enquiry report of Sri K. Sahadeva Reddy, Commissioner of Inquiries, without verification of the rates issued by the GS, PW Work Shops Sitanagaram, by any Mechanical experts of the department, but their request was not considered. 9. Though more than 11 years have been lapsed after issuance of charge sheet, the respondent authorities have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner even after he was retired from service on 31.12.2012. Due to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and as there was no alternative remedy, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court vide W.P. No.22244 of 2020 with a prayer to set aside the impugned charge memo issued vide G.O.Rt No.1697, dated 31.10.2009, purely on the grounds of unexplained delay of 11 years, due to non conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 10. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 25.02.2021, the respondent No.1/Government, after deep silence of 7 years after submission of his explanation on the final findings of the Commissioner of Inquiries’ enquiry report, issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide Government memo No.10794/Vig. II-V&E 2/2009, dated 19.03.2021, with a direction to "show cause as to why a penalty of (100%) cut in pension permanently shall not be imposed". The main contention in the writ petition W.P. No. 22244 of 2020 was that there is abnormal unexplained delay by the respondents at all stages and interestingly even in the show cause notice the respondents did not venture to explain the reasons. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed an Interlocutory Application, requesting 6 weeks time to pass final orders after obtaining the concurrence from the APPSC against the petitioner, as it is mandatory before passing the final orders. 11. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed an Interlocutory Application, requesting 6 weeks time to pass final orders after obtaining the concurrence from the APPSC against the petitioner, as it is mandatory before passing the final orders. 11. Though the show cause notice issued by the respondent No.1 is 'contrary to law' and got issued in a hurried manner to cover up their lapses, petitioner submitted his explanation with all Rule positions and facts, duly denying all the charges framed against the petitioner along with a request to drop all the six charges framed against him, by exonerating the punishment proposed in the show cause notice as he has not violated any codal procedures. The other contentions of the learned counsel is that the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner are affected in view of the abnormal delay of 14 years in passing the final orders in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, denied the petitioner from regular pension for all this period. Hence, requested to allow the writ petition. 12. Respondent No.2/Engineer in Chief(Admn.), filed counteraffidavit, denying material allegations interalia contending that the Director General, General Administration (Vigilance & Enforcement) Department in their Vigilance Report No.16 (1363/V&E/EI/2008), dated 25.03.2009, has submitted that their officials inquired on the allegations of irregularities and corruption in procurement of Screw Gearing (SG) Shutters in Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam and made the following recommendations. 13. Recommendations of the Director General, General Administration (Vigilance & Enforcement) Department are as follows:- “I. Instruct the Engineer-in-Chief, I & CAD Department to: i. Recover an amount of Rs.7,98,75,219/- from the respective firms/execution officials towards the excess payment made by way of recording excess quantities of MS Channels for walkway bridges payment released for RM length though the quoted rate is for 2 channels along with bracings. ii. Recover an amount of Rs.98,300/- from the agreement concluding authority and the technical Assistant Engineer who took part in processing of tenders and agreement in Tekkali division, towards the excess payment made by adoption of excess rates for bolts & nuts for foundations and MS angle for hand railing with hold fasts, instead of the rates quoted by the firm and also approved by the SE/VDP/SKLM. iii. Recover an amount of Rs.5,42,39,454/- (Rs.5,24,61,380+ 17,78,074/-) towards shortage of MS chequered sheets of walkway bridges and shortage of SG shutters in Narasannapeta division from officers responsible/contractors as indicated in the abstract of recommendations. iv. iii. Recover an amount of Rs.5,42,39,454/- (Rs.5,24,61,380+ 17,78,074/-) towards shortage of MS chequered sheets of walkway bridges and shortage of SG shutters in Narasannapeta division from officers responsible/contractors as indicated in the abstract of recommendations. iv. Instruct the departmental officials to adhere scrupulously to the GOS and norms in vogue with regard to estimates tenders and budgetary proposals in the wake of a colossal wrongful loss of Rs. 19,65,38,45/-. v. Terminate all the 403 number of agreements against which materials are not received so far and for which agreement period is lapsed, hence forth duly following the norms in practice so as to save wrongful loss of about Rs. 13,33,15,185/-. vi. Alert the Chief Engineers, Irrigation & CAD Department, in the state for arriving at realistic rates duly following the SSR for mechanical components and observed data for consumables and labour charges in view of the above serious irregularities…II…III… IV. Initiate action against the officers (33 numbers) and stamp vendors (2 numbers) as recommended.” 14. It is submitted that on the basis of enquiry report, the Government vide Memo No.10794 Nig.II-V&E-2/2009, dated 19.03.2021, has provisionally decided to impose a penalty of 100% cut in pension permanently against the petitioner, for the allegations of irregularities and corruption in procurement of Screw Gearing(SG) Shutters in Vamsadhara Project, Srikakulam under Rule 9 of APRP(Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules), 1980 and according to this Rule the State Government reserves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period. 15. It is submitted that the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the petitioner-Sri D.Sudhakara Rao, Executive Engineer (Retd.), is due to involvement of huge number of officers in the present issue and misappropriation of crores of Government money. It is submitted that it will take considerable time for passing the final orders. It is submitted that the Government have addressed to APPSC for concurrence in order to finalize the amounts to be recovered from the Charged Officer and soon after receipt of the orders from the Government and APPSC the disciplinary proceedings will be concluded and finally, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 16. It is submitted that the Government have addressed to APPSC for concurrence in order to finalize the amounts to be recovered from the Charged Officer and soon after receipt of the orders from the Government and APPSC the disciplinary proceedings will be concluded and finally, requested to dismiss the writ petition. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions urged in the affidavit, specifically contended that in spite of completion of enquiry proceedings upon submission of enquiry report on 16.04.2023, the State did not appear to be serious on expeditious completion of disciplinary enquiry notwithstanding the time period fixed for concluding the proceedings. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that though 14 years have elapsed and the petitioner has retired from service and 100% pension cut is proposed to impose upon him, the State is exhibiting lethargic and leisure attitude towards conclusion of the proceedings and there was hardly any progress in the disciplinary enquiry; as such the petitioner is put to mental agony. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even though this Hon’ble Court specifically directed the respondents herein in W.P.No.17751 of 2009, dated 26.08.2009, but even after lapse of 14 years, the same was not concluded for one reason or the other and without explaining valid reasons for such abnormal delay is nothing but depriving the petitioner from his Fundamental Rights as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court wherein it is held that the Right of Pension is a Right to Property as envisaged under article 300(a) of the Constitution of India and depriving regular pension is nothing but taking away the livelihood of the petitioner which amounts to in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 19. He further submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner either the petitioner not cooperated for investigation or caused any delay for completion of enquiry/proceedings. 19. He further submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner either the petitioner not cooperated for investigation or caused any delay for completion of enquiry/proceedings. In the absence of such allegation against the petitioner, the abnormal delay of 14 years for concluding the proceedings should have been explained in the present impugned show cause notice and he would also submit that it is a settled principle of law, any abnormal delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings against any delinquent employee is nothing but harassment on the part of such delinquent employee and any abnormal delay without reason and explanation, liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 20. He further submits that the respondent No.1 issued G.O’s and Circulars more recent G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, wherein it is contemplated that any disciplinary enquiry should be completed within a period of three months. But if the proceedings are complicated one, it must be within a period of six months, but dehorsing the batch of G.O’s and Circulars issued by the respondent No.1, the disciplinary authority did not complete proceedings even after lapse of 14 years and even today by way of it’s counter-affidavit urging that to get the approval from the respondent No.1 as well as APPSC for proposal, punishment is nothing but in utter violation of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 as well as G.O’s issued by the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.11776 and 11779 of 2021, wherein, it is held as follows: “This Court finds what is argued by Sri M.Vijay Kumar is correct. Delay is clear and is writ large. The case law cited by the learned counsel is also applicable. In P.V.Mahadevan's case (supra), there was a delay of 10 years in initiating the action. Relying upon other cases which are referred, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held as follows: 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 officer concerned. 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. As argued by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the non-functioning of a Tribunal at this stage. However, the fact remains that in terms of G.O. Ms.No.679, the case should have finished in a time bound manner. Even otherwise, a series of orders quashing proceedings have been passed by the learned single Judges from September, 2020 onwards till date. Despite the orders being passed and the proceedings being quashed, as a consequence of the order, the respondents have not taken any steps to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings are started also. In the opinion of this Court; this gross inaction on the part of the State' is enough to put an end to the mental agony of the petitioners. Principles of comity urge this Court to follow the earlier orders passed by the learned single Judges.” 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on Judgment of Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.11294 of 2013 and batch, dated 25.06.2013, wherein it is held as follows: “In this case, it is to be noticed that though misconduct was noticed by the ACB authorities after inspecting the check dams during the year 1999-2002, proceedings were initiated against the respondent/applicant in the year 2007 i.e five years after noticing the misconduct. There is no reason for the delay in initiating the proceedings against the respondent/applicant after a lapse of five years. After initiating the proceedings, the first charge memo was issued by the petitioners on 18.07.2007 for which the respondent filed explanation. Even thereafter, no further steps were taken immediately and revised charge memo was issued on 02.09.2010 vide Rc.No.4140/2007-M8. In fact, there is no much variation in substance of both the charge memos, except indicating the misconduct of the respondent resulted in loss of Rs.5,000/- and odd in the revised charge memo. Even as per the explanation for the delay offered by the petitioners before the Tribunal as well as this Court, except the administrative delay and referring to the communication from ACB authorities, no other acceptable reason is forthcoming. It is to be noticed that the State of A.P., in G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 1.11.08, fixed the time frame to complete the inquiry within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases and also there are some provisions in Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, wherein time limit is prescribed for completion of each stage of disciplinary proceedings.” 22. On the strength of the judgments referred above, learned counsel for the petitioner requested to set aside/quash the proceedings, vide G.O.RT.No.1697 I & CAD (Ser.VII) (V&E-2), dated 31.10.2009. 23. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Services III would submit that serious allegation of irregularities and corruption in procurement of Screw Gearing Shutters in Vamsadhar Project, to the tune of several crores are leveled against this petitioner, as he has allegedly colluded with the contractors and other department officials. On the basis of written statement of defence, charges were framed against the petitioner and as per Rule 9 of APRP (Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules), 1980, under which the Government proposed to withheld 100% pension of the petitioner for the serious embezzlement of funds, allegations of irregularities and corruption. 24. The learned Government Pleader also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. V. Appala Swamy, (2007) 14 SCC 49 , dated 25.01.2007, wherein it is held as follows: “12. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefor. So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down therefor. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed on the ground of delay are: (1) where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the lapses on the part of the employee; (2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee. Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the employee before the inquiry officer. 13. This aspect of the matter is now squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Secy. to Govt., Prohibition & Excise Dept. v. L. Srinivasan; P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India; Registrar, Coop. Societies v Sachindra Nath Pandey. 14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India. That case was decided on its peculiar facts. In that case, even the basic material on which departmental proceedings could be initiated was absent. The departmental proceedings were initiated after 6 years and continued for a period of 7 years. In that fact situation, it was held that the appellant therein was prejudiced. 15. Bijlani, therefore, is not an authority and, in fact, as would appear from the decision in P.D. Agrawal3 for the proposition that only on the ground of delay the entire proceedings can be quashed without considering the other relevant factors therefor.” 25. He also relied upon another Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Akhilesh Jha and another, (2021) 12 SCC 460 : 2021 SCC OnLIne SC 696, dated 06.09.2021, wherein it is held as follows: “14. On the basis of the above material which has been placed on the record, it was impossible to come to the conclusion that the charge against the first respondent is vague or ambiguous. The charge-sheet, together with the statement of imputations, contains a detailed elaboration of the allegations against the first respondent and does not leave the recipient in a measure of doubt or ambiguity over the nature of the case he is required to answer in the disciplinary enquiry. The finding that the charge is vague is palpably in error. The charge-sheet, together with the statement of imputations, contains a detailed elaboration of the allegations against the first respondent and does not leave the recipient in a measure of doubt or ambiguity over the nature of the case he is required to answer in the disciplinary enquiry. The finding that the charge is vague is palpably in error. The Tribunal declined to quash the charge-sheet by its initial order dated 28-7-2016. However, by a subsequent order dated 5-1-2018, it proceeded to do exactly what it had declined to do by its previous order. The Tribunal purportedly did so on the basis that prejudice had been caused to the first respondent by the denial of an opportunity for deputation or for promotion as a result of the pendency of the proceedings. 15. The line of reasoning which weighed with the Tribunal is plainly erroneous. The Tribunal would have been justified in directing the expeditious conclusion of the enquiry, but instead, it proceeded to quash the enquiry in its entirety. This, in our view, was clearly impermissible. Every delay in conducting a disciplinary enquiry does not, ipso facto, lead to the enquiry being vitiated. Whether prejudice is caused to the officer who is being enquired into is a matter which has to be decided on the basis of the circumstances of each case. Prejudice must be demonstrated to have been caused and cannot be a matter of surmise. Apart from submitting that the first respondent was unable to proceed on deputation or to seek promotion, there is no basis on which it could be concluded that his right to defend himself stands prejudicially affected by a delay of two years in concluding the enquiry. The High Court, therefore, in our view, has clearly failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by simply affirming the judgment of the Tribunal. The judgment of the Tribunal suffered from basic errors which go to the root of the matter and which have been ignored both by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court.” 26. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondents are going to complete the disciplinary proceedings as stated above within a short period, thereby, after getting concurrence from the respondent No.1 as well as APPSC. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondents are going to complete the disciplinary proceedings as stated above within a short period, thereby, after getting concurrence from the respondent No.1 as well as APPSC. At this stage, quashing of entire charges against the petitioner is detrimental to the public exchequer apart from restraining the respondents from recovery of misappropriated amounts. 27. Learned Government Pleader would submit that as huge amount of money is misappropriated in this case and as multiple number of officers are involved in this case, in which the petitioner is also involved, considerable time is being taken for passing final orders. Finally, considering the conduct, moral turpitude, dereliction of duties and violation of codal Rules, the petitioner deserves no consideration and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 28. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner represented by learned Senior Counsel and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 29. The fact remains that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.1697 I&CAD (Ser.VII)(V&E-2) Department, dated 31.10.2009, were not concluded till date for one reason or another. Nearly 14 years were completed for completion of the subject enquiry which is against the object of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings as well as terms of the G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008. Therefore, continuation of disciplinary proceedings nearly even after one and half decade is nothing but, harassment and causing mental agony to the petitioner herein. The entire defence advanced by the respondents that huge amount of public money was misappropriated and as much as 34 officers including petitioner were involved and due to the said reason much delay was caused, is untenable and liable to be eradicated on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the rules framed under a APCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 which contemplates a simple procedure by observing principles of natural justice and charges need not be proved in a strict sense as required under Court of law. 30. Therefore, the delay caused for completion of proceedings is nothing but failure to collect and produce cogent and satisfactory evidence/material to prove guilt against the petitioner. 30. Therefore, the delay caused for completion of proceedings is nothing but failure to collect and produce cogent and satisfactory evidence/material to prove guilt against the petitioner. It is also a fact that this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.17751 of 2009, directed the respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within a reasonable time as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department. Even though the respondents suffered the order, for completion of the disciplinary proceedings as per timeline, they have not completed the disciplinary proceedings even after lapse of 14 years which is nothing but disobedience and utter violation of the orders of this Hon’ble Court by the respondents without there being any valid reasons. The completion of disciplinary proceedings as per time bound and in accordance with law is universally recognized principle of human dignity and Right to speedy trial and shall also preserve the interest of the Government in the prosecution. 31. The prolonged continuation of disciplinary proceedings is contrary to the public interest and also contrary to the circulars issued by the Central Vigilance Commission in which the Commission specifically directed the authorities concerned to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months or if it is a complicated case within a period of six months. The Commission as well as the respondent No.1 fixed the timeline as stated above only to protect the public interest and said prolonged continuation is nothing but punishment on the part of the delinquent employee. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after lapse of 14 years, the said disciplinary proceedings are not concluded for one reason or another without there being any valid reasons and prolonging the disciplinary proceedings thus causing such abnormal delay is nothing but depriving the petitioner from enjoying his Fundamental Rights and also, by depriving the petitioner for getting regular pension which is Right to Property as envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court is acceptable and to be upheld. 32. On perusal of the entire record placed before this Court and the contentions advanced as well as counter-affidavit of the respondents that this Court finds that there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner neither cooperated for investigation nor caused delay tactics for completing the enquiry. 32. On perusal of the entire record placed before this Court and the contentions advanced as well as counter-affidavit of the respondents that this Court finds that there is no allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner neither cooperated for investigation nor caused delay tactics for completing the enquiry. In the absence of any such allegation on the part of the petitioner, the abnormal delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings should have been explained in detail in the impugned show cause notice which is valid and sustainable. It is a settled principle of law that, any abnormal delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent employee is nothing but harassment on the part of the delinquent employee and any such abnormal delay without there being any valid reasons and explanation, the delayed proceedings are liable to be quashed in the interest of justice. 33. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner is involved in high volume misappropriation of public funds and 34 officers including the petitioner were involved from the day of framing charges and completion of disciplinary proceedings against all the 34 people is a herculean task for the respondents. Due to the said reason only, the present delay was caused is untenable and not sustainable. Since the contention is contrary to the object of their G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and also ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as stated supra. The other contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the abnormal delay in completion of the disciplinary proceedings in the case on hand is neither intentional nor wanton but only due to the gravity of the case as explained above and this abnormal delay in the circumstances cannot be interfered as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as relied by him are not applicable in the present case and in the absence of any delay for non-cooperation by the petitioner and even though there is a specific direction by this Hon’ble Court as referred supra in the year 2009 itself, for completion of the disciplinary proceedings as per time line granted. 34. 34. In view of the above analysis and reasons as stated above the prolonged continuation of disciplinary proceedings for a period of approximately 14 years and still praying for time for completion of the said proceedings, even after suffered by the order of this Court and continuing the proceedings is nothing but colorable exercise of power and abuse of process of law on the part of the respondents. In the case on hand, this Hon’ble Court initially granted interim direction not to proceed further pursuant to the show cause notice after prima facie convinced that the respondents are solely caused the delay, as such the continuation of disciplinary proceedings with such abnormal delay are liable to be quashed. 35. Accordingly the present writ petition is allowed, the impugned proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.1697 I&CAD, dated 31.10.2009, are set aside. The respondents are further directed to consider releasing all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as per his entitlement, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.