Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1199 (AP)

State of Andhra Pradesh v. E. Venkat Reddy

2024-08-23

G.NARENDAR, HARINATH NUNEPALLY

body2024
JUDGMENT : HARINATH.N. J : The writ appeal is preferred by the State challenging the order of disposal of the writ petition passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has held that there was gross negligence on part of the respondents/appellants in conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 2. The learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 which was passed after lapse of ten years from the date of initiation of the proceedings and after lapse of six years from the date of submission of explanation by the petitioner. 3. The respondent was working as Assistant Director (Handlooms and Textiles) at the time of attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2011. Articles of Charge dated 16.02.2012 were issued to the respondent calling for explanation on the charges framed for the period 1996-2004 and 2008-2009. 4. It was alleged that the respondent had failed to find out the genuineness of the records of five societies. The said societies had claimed inflated marketing incentives and caused misappropriation of funds sanctioned to those societies to a tune of Rs.49,71,900/-. It was further alleged that the respondent had failed to detect bogus membership and recommended for sanction of excess cash credit/incentives of Rs.6,09,500/-. 5. The respondent submitted his explanation on 09.03.2012. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 11.02.2013 holding that part of the charges were proved against the respondent. 6. Without considering the explanation submitted by the respondent, show-cause notice dated 26.03.2016 was issued calling upon to explain as to why penalty of cut in pension by 15% on permanent basis should not be imposed against the respondent. 7. The respondent submitted his explanation on 16.04.2016. The impugned order was passed on 11.08.2022 imposing the punishment of cut in pension by 15%. The respondent aggrieved by the punishment imposed on him filed writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge has considered the case of the respondent on merits and had held that the officers of the appellant had exhibited gross negligence in concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein. 8. The respondent aggrieved by the punishment imposed on him filed writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge has considered the case of the respondent on merits and had held that the officers of the appellant had exhibited gross negligence in concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein. 8. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the fact that there was an abnormal delay on part of the respondent in submitting his explanation and that the charges which were issued against the respondent were well within the prescribed period of limitation as envisaged under A.P. Revised Pension Rules. 9. The learned Government Pleader also submits that, there is no bar in law for initiation of appropriate action against an erring employee more so when there is a huge financial loss to the public exchequer. 10. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the inaction on the part of the respondent in taking appropriate action at the appropriate time against the five societies which had submitted bogus claims. Such inaction on part of the respondent is to be treated as dereliction of duty with ulterior motives. 11. It is submitted that the appellants had exhibited different yardsticks in case of similarly situated employees, namely, S. Ahmed Mohiddin, K. Ramappa, S. Basava Raju, S. Appaji and B. Chandrasekhara Raju. The Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles had imposed the punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The employees had appealed to Government and the Government had modified the punishment as censure. 12. The learned Counsel also submits that the case of the respondent is similarly situated as that of the employees named above. However, the appellants have without considering the representation of the respondent dated 06.05.2019 imposed the punishment of 15% cut in pension on permanent basis. 13. There is no explanation for the abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. It is also evident that charges were issued after ten months after the date of the superannuation of the respondent. It is equally curious to note that Articles of charge relate to the period during which the respondent was working as Assistant Director during the period 1996-2004 and 2008-2009. 14. It is also evident that charges were issued after ten months after the date of the superannuation of the respondent. It is equally curious to note that Articles of charge relate to the period during which the respondent was working as Assistant Director during the period 1996-2004 and 2008-2009. 14. It is evident that the concerned officer who had the superintendence over the functioning and discharge of the role of the respondent has royally exhibited utmost negligence in discharging his duty. It is the 2nd respondent who has to be held accountable for the abnormal delay in conducting and completing the enquiry within reasonable period of time. The 2nd respondent has to be held accountable for having exhibited different yardstick insofar as imposing of punishment for similarly placed employees and the respondent herein. 15. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is not only devoid of merits, but also a glaring example of non-application of mind by the officers concerned while deciding matters pertaining to misappropriation of funds of the Cooperative Societies. The conduct of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings and passing of the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 speaks volumes of the non-commitment they have towards the public while serving as a public servants. 16. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the conduct of the appellants cannot be condoned and it is made clear that the respondents ought to ensure that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against any of the employee(s) are to be conducted and concluded by following the principles of natural justice within a reasonable period of time. 17. The appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without costs. 18. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.