Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 949 (AP)

D. Rambabu v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-07-03

D.RAMESH

body2023
ORDER : The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to declare the charge memo issued in proceedings in Rc.No.A3/3922/2021-1, dated 31.12.2021 of the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade- II on 26.12.2005 through the District Selection Committee and posted to Nunna. Later, he worked as Government SW Boys Hostel, Prakashnagar, Vijayawada from 11.06.2011 to 31.05.2017. Thereafter, on 31.05.2017, he was transferred to the Government Social Welfare Boys Hostel, Gannavaram and continuing in the same place. But surprisingly, the 2nd respondent issued charge memo dated 31.12.2021 by framing seven charges against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has committed grave irregularities while working at Social Welfare Boys Hostel, Prakashnagar. It is further stated that all the alleged incidents are pertaining to the period from June, 2014 to February, 2015. But after lapse of seven years a charge memo dated 31.12.2021 was served on the petitioner on 11.01.2022. Immediately after receipt of the same, the petitioner filed his objections. Further it is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee are to be completed within three months in simple cases and within six months in complicated cases. 3. Based on the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have initiated action by issuing charge memo way back in the year 2021, after lapse of seven years. After issuing charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The respondents have not appointed any enquiry officer. By virtue of the pendency of the disciplinary charges, the respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner for further promotion. Leaned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board, which reads 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. 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.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N.Radhakishan, which reads as follows: “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 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 relevant factors and to balance and weight 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 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 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 disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. 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 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 its 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 or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration. 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 particularizing the role played by each of the officers charged. 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 inquiry officer even assuming that action was validly being initiated under 1991 Rules. There is no explanation whatsoever for delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings all these years. The case depended on records of the Department only and Director General, Anti Corruption bureau had pointed out that no witnesses had been examined before he gave his report. The Inquiry Officers, who had been appointed on 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 respondent at any stage tried to obstruct or delay the inquiry 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. It is nobody's case that respondent at any stage tried to obstruct or delay the inquiry 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 July 31, 1995 and directing the state to promote the respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos dated October 27, 1995 and June 1, 1996. The Tribunal rightly did not quash these two later memos.” 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have neither conducted enquiry nor concluded the proceedings, despite having circulars by the State to conclude the enquiry within the stipulated period. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that they filed counter. According to the averments made in the counter, the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners with regard to the allegations pertaining to the year 2015 vide proceedings dated 11.11.2021. Along with the petitioner the proceedings were initiated jointly against two other persons. Hence, they requested time to conclude the said proceedings as the proceedings are joint proceedings. 7. Considering the submissions, averments made in the Writ Petition and the counter, there is no doubt that as per the circular issued in G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, there is a specific direction to all the disciplinary authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three(3) months and if charges are framed dispose of within six(6) months. But in the instant case the respondents have not concluded the proceedings. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances and on perusal of the record, as the charges were framed way back in the year 2021, the respondents are directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of three (3) months. Failing to conclude the proceedings in the stipulated time, the respondents are further directed to consider the case of the petitioner without reference to the charge memo dated 31.12.2021. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.