Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 484 (TS)

P. Bhagavan Reddy v. State of Telangana

2025-04-29

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Narayan Reddy, learned Senior Designated Counsel, appearing for Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel on record appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending departmental proceedings initiated by charge memo, vide G.O.Rt.No.722 Revenue (Vigilance-V) Department dated 25.05.2013 within the time limits of six (6) months as prescribed by way of an Order, dated 07.02.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.20695 of 2022, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently quash the departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner and further direct the respondents to release full pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% and pass such other or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Excise Inspector on 17.04.1989 and promoted as Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise during the year 2002, 2008 and 2011 respectively. He retired from service on 31.08.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. While he was working as Prohibition and Excise Superintendent at Medchal, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.722 Revenue (Vigilance-V) Department dated 25.05.2013 alleging that he has failed to supervise the work of his subordinates during the excise period 2010-12. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.07.2013 requesting relevant documents, but only few documents were provided on 16.04.2016, and the files relating to successful bidders, seized by the DSP, ACB on 06.03.2012, were not furnished. Despite this, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 04.05.2016. 4. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.233 dated 16.10.2017 for initiating common disciplinary proceedings. Further, under G.O.Ms.No.626 dated 16.10.2017, Inquiry Officer was appointed and under G.O.Ms.No.626 on the same date, Presenting Officer was appointed. Due to delay in concluding the proceedings initiated against him, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20695 of 2022 challenging the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending departmental proceedings against him. Further, under G.O.Ms.No.626 dated 16.10.2017, Inquiry Officer was appointed and under G.O.Ms.No.626 on the same date, Presenting Officer was appointed. Due to delay in concluding the proceedings initiated against him, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20695 of 2022 challenging the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending departmental proceedings against him. By order dated 07.02.2023, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.4 therein to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months from the date of the order. Thereafter, despite multiple representations submitted by the petitioner, the authorities have not taken any action as on date. 5. It is further the case of the petitioner that due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, he is being deprived of many benefits including the retirement benefits and the same is causing hardship to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. PERUSED THE RECORD. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 6. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that despite specific directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.20695 of 2022, the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded till as on date. The delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.722 Revenue (Vigilance-V) Department, dated 25.05.2013, is unexplained and therefore, the charge itself needs to be quashed. 7. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand contends that the respondents may be directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and if the proceedings are not concluded for any reason within the said period of six (06) months by the respondents, the respondents may be directed to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. CONCLUSION: 8. The Judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, dated 08.08.2005 reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and in particular at para Nos 6 & 11, it is observed as under:- 6. Mr. Prabhakar also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his case. CONCLUSION: 8. The Judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, dated 08.08.2005 reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and in particular at para Nos 6 & 11, it is observed as under:- 6. Mr. Prabhakar also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his case. It is stated in para 14 of the affidavit that the respondent with the mala fide intention issued the present charge memo against the appellant even though the alleged incident of issuance of sale deed was of the year 1990, which was 10 year prior to the issuance of charge memo and that very reason for issuing charge memo was that the appellant could be detained from promoting to the post of Chief Engineer of the Housing Board. 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. 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. 9. The Apex Court in a catena of its judgments enlisted below held that the Courts have a duty to quash the disciplinary proceedings when there is inordinate delay in concluding the same. i) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajdeswar Reddy reported in 2010(3) ALD Page 501 (DB) ii) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2006 (5) SCC page 88. iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 . iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs. i) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajdeswar Reddy reported in 2010(3) ALD Page 501 (DB) ii) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2006 (5) SCC page 88. iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 . iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2009 (7) SCC Page 305. v) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 26.04.2013 passed in W.P.No.2826 of 2013 and the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated 25.06.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.11924, 10307, 10441 and 10488 of 2013, referring to delay in initiating or concluding enquiry proceedings observed that delay causes prejudice to the delinquent, as such the same is also a ground for quashing the charge itself. 11. Taking into consideration the fact as borne on record that the Charge Memo had been issued against the petitioner in the year 2013 and the fact that there is no progress in the disciplinary proceedings even as on date in the year 2025, this Court opines that since the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the year 2013 had not been proved as on date in the year 2025 as well, and there is no conclusion arrived at holding the petitioner as guilty of the allegation levelled against him, without finality having reached on the subject issue even in the year 2025, the petitioner cannot be put to any further mental agony and suffering at this length of time. 12. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The judgments of the Various Courts referred to above and again enlisted below :- i) The judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, dated 08.08.2005 reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 (referred to and extracted above) ii) The judgment of Division Bench of this Court, dated 26.04.2013 passed in W.P.No.2826 of 2013. iii) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.06.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.11294, 10307, 10441 & 10488 of 2013. iv) The Court of A.P. Vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, dated 08.08.2005 reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 (referred to and extracted above) ii) The judgment of Division Bench of this Court, dated 26.04.2013 passed in W.P.No.2826 of 2013. iii) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.06.2013 passed in W.P.Nos.11294, 10307, 10441 & 10488 of 2013. iv) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajdesw ar Reddy reported in 2010(3) ALD Page 501 (DB) v) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2006 (5) SCC page 88. vi) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 . vii) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chow dury reported in 2009 (7) SCC Page 305. viii) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 565. The Writ Petition is allow ed as prayed for and the Charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.722 Revenue (Vigilance-V) Department, dated 25.05.2013, issued against the petitioner is accordingly quashed. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.