Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1422 (AP)

K. v. N. Prabhu Kumar VS State of Andhra Pradesh

2024-10-04

SUBBA REDDY SATTI

body2024
ORDER : The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending disciplinary Proceedings vide TEC No.84, 162 of 2013, dated 06.01.2017 and 06.12.2013 issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP), now referred to 3rd and 4th respondents vide G.O.Rt.Nos.464, 408 Revenue (Vigilance-IV) Department, dated 09.05.2023, 27.04.2023 by the 1st respondent, for the incident pertains to the year 2010-2012, as illegal arbitrary and in violation of existing specific instructions of the Government, for early conclusion, and as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in P.V.Mahadevan vs.M.D.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, and accordingly set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 3 months, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 GA (SER.C) Department, dated 1.11.2008, and G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD dated 12.09.2022, failing which the proceedings stands quashed automatically, in terms of the similar orders passed in Liquor Syndicate Cases in W.P.No.20872 of 2018, dated 21.06.2018 and W.P.No.14567 of 2019 dated 25.09.2019 confirmed in W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch, dated 16.09.2021 and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. (a) The petitioner, while working as Proh.& Excise Inspector, Vijayawada, a raid was conducted at the offices of the Excise Superintendents at Vijayawada and Machilipatnam on 06.03.2012 and records pertaining to the auction of A4 wine shops for the Excise years 2010-2012 were seized vide Cr.No.3/RCO-ACB-VJA/2012. Tribunal Enquiry Case No.84 of 2013 was registered. Tribunal Enquiry Case No.162 of 2013 was registered based upon the surprise check conducted at Karimnagar Town on 13.12.2011. (b) Charge sheets in the above two cases were filed on 06.01.2017 and on 06.12.2013. Despite framing of charges in the year 2017 and 2013 respectively, no progress in the matters, causing grave prejudice, agony, pain and suffering to the petitioner. (c) It is also affecting his prospects in the Department and also causing impediments for his development in service. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 01.11.2018 fixing time-limit for early completion of departmental enquiries. In the said G.O., instructions were issued for expeditious completion of inquiries viz., three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases. Since the inquiry, pending against the petitioner, is not completed, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 01.11.2018 fixing time-limit for early completion of departmental enquiries. In the said G.O., instructions were issued for expeditious completion of inquiries viz., three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases. Since the inquiry, pending against the petitioner, is not completed, the above writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri Rmalingeswara Rao Kocherla Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for the respondents. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, which was constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 was abolished by Ordinance No.6 of 2022, dated 16.8.2022. The same was published in Part IV–B of the Extraordinary Gazette of Andhra Pradesh. After repeal of the Tribunal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, General Administration (Services–E) Department, dated 18.8.2022 transferring all the cases pending on the file of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to the Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI), to continue the pending proceedings and to dispose of by it in accordance with the statutory rules. 5. Thus, the Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an employee, are to be completed within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases as per G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services– C) Department dated 01.11.2008. In the case at hand, the petitioner is facing the charges of misconduct, since 2013 and charges were framed in the year 2013 and 2017. 6. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh 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 the 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. 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 the 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….” 7. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “11. … …. 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.” 8. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that before the charge sheet is quashed, this Court must consider the gravity of the charge and all other relevant factors before coming to the said conclusion. 9. Given the above expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, employees cannot work under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary proceedings. Despite fixing of time schedules as per the aforementioned G.O. the inquiry is delayed and the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.679 will be frustrated. 10. In the case at hand, the alleged incidents took place around 2011-2012 and the cases were registered and charges were framed in the year 2017 and 2013 respectively. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was abolished in the year 2022. There was no progress in the inquiry till abolition of the Tribunal and now the file is transferred to the COI. 11. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was abolished in the year 2022. There was no progress in the inquiry till abolition of the Tribunal and now the file is transferred to the COI. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and given the discussion supra, the Commissionerate of Inquiries (Respondent No.2) is directed to conclude the inquiries, within a period of six months from today, failing which the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide Tribunal Enquiry Case Nos.84 and 162 of 2013, which were transferred to the C.O.I, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 18.8.2022 shall stand quashed automatically without reference any further orders.. 12. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.