Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Dwarakanth

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Sept 2021WA/470/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed five writ appeals filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh challenging a single Judge's order that directed state departments to complete enquiry discipline cases against retired officers within a specific timeframe, threatening to quash Charge Memos thereafter cited, the court found no ground to disturb the lower court's direction due to long delays. It dismissed the appeals

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs G… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶5

WRIT APPEAL Nos.456, 470, 476, 484 and 485 of 2021

¶6

(Taken up through video conferencing)

¶7

W.A.No.456 of 2021

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise), 4^th Block, Ground Floor, Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another .

¶9

.. Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

G. Dwarakanath, S/o. late Sri Rama Mohan Roy, Aged 60 years, Retired Assistant, Proh. and Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada, R/o. Guntur, State of Andhra Pradesh, and another.

¶12

.. Respondents

¶13

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP

¶14

for Additional Advocate General- II

¶15

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for

¶16

Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota

¶17

W.A.No.470 of 2021

¶18

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise), 4^th Block, Ground Floor, Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another.

¶19

.. Appellants

¶20

versus

¶21

G. Dwarakanath, S/o. late Sri Rama Mohan Roy, Aged 60 years, Retired Assistant, Proh. and Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada, R/o. Guntur, State of Andhra Pradesh, and another.

¶22

.. Respondents

¶23

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP,

¶24

for Additional Advocate General- II

¶25

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for

¶26

Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota

¶27

HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch

¶28

¶29

W.A.No.476 of 2021

¶30

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise), 4^th Block, Ground Floor, Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another.

¶31

versus

¶32

G. Dwarakanath, S/o. late Sri Rama Mohan Roy, Aged 60 years, Retired Assistant, Proh. and Excise Superintendent, Vijayawada, R/o. Guntur, State of Andhra Pradesh, and another.

¶33

.. Respondents

¶34

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP,

¶35

for Additional Advocate General- II

¶36

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota

¶37

W.A.No.484 of 2021

¶38

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Excise), 4^th Block, Ground Floor, Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another.

¶39

versus

¶40

G. Krishna Rao, S/o. late Sri Venkateswara Rao, Aged 60 years, Retired P&E Inspector, R/o. H.No.24-2-675, 2B, Sai Sadan Apparts, Saraswathi Nagar, Darga Metta, SPSR Nellore, State of Andhra Pradesh, and another.

¶41

.. Respondents

¶42

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP, for Additional Advocate General- II Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota

¶43

W.A.No.485 of 2021

¶44

The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Revenue (Excise), 4^th Block, Ground Floor, Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another.

¶45

versus

¶46

HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch

.. Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP, for Additional Advocate General- II

¶51

Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota

¶52

COMMON JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶53

(Dt: 16.09.2021)

¶54

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

¶55

Heard Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General-II, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota, learned counsel, for respondent No.1 in all the appeals.

¶56

Though the appeals arise out of separate orders passed by the learned single Judge in individual writ petitions, the substratum of the orders is one and the same. By the orders assailed, the writ petitions were disposed of directing the respondents therein to conclude the departmental proceedings pending against the writ petitioners within a time-frame, failing which it was stated that the Charge Memos issued against the writ petitioners shall stand quashed.

¶57

Since the issue involved in all these writ appeals is same, the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶58

HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch

¶59

¶60

W.A.No.456 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 in W.P.No.14567 of 2019, W.A.No.470 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 in W.P.No.14565 of 2019, W.A.No.476 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 in W.P.No.14566 of 2019, W.A.No.484 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 in W.P.No.13476 of 2019 and W.A.No.485 of 2021 arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.09.2019 in W.P.No.13520 of 2019.

¶61

Basic facts of the writ petitions, to the extent relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present appeals, are noted as under:

¶62

(i) Mr. Dwarakanath, the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.14565 of 2019, 14566 of 2019 and 14567 of 2019, had retired from service as Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent on 31.08.2019. While he was in service, a Charge Memo dated 21.06.2017 was issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), Hyderabad, in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.116 of 2013 alleging that he, actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his official position, had received bribes/mamools from the liquor syndicate and allowed various irregularities in respect of certain wine shops. The said allegations relate to the events that took place between the years 2009 and 2012. Apart from the aforesaid Charge Memo, he was also issued two more Charge Memos, vide Charge Memo dated 15.09.2017 in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.136 of 2013 and Charge Memo dated 27.11.2017 in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.172 of 2013, on similar nature of allegations pertaining to the events that took place between the years 2009 and 2012.

¶63

HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch

¶64

¶65

(ii) Mr. G. Krishna Rao, the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.13476 of 2019 and 13520 of 2019, had retired from service as Prohibition & Excise Inspector, on 31.01.2019. While he was in service, a Charge Memo dated 17.01.2018 was issued by the Tribunal in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.596 of 2013, alleging that wine syndicates had paid him mamools and that he had allowed the licence holders to sell the liquor above MRP rates and to run wine shops beyond the prescribed timings and had also allowed sale of loose liquor for consumption without licence/permission. The said allegations relate to the incidents that took place between the years 2008 and 2011. He was also issued a Charge Memo dated 29.11.2018 in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.457 of 2013 in relation to the events that took place between the years 2009 to 2012. The allegations in the said Charge Memo are to the effect that he, actuated by corrupt motive and in connivance with benamidars, allowed irregularities in respect of certain wine shops and that he did not take action to control violations in respect of the affairs of such wine shops and, thereby, abused his official position.

¶66

(iii) As departmental proceedings initiated against the writ petitioners were not being concluded and pension was not being paid to them on account of pendency of those proceedings, the writ petitioners approached this Court by filing respective wit petitions. While W.P.Nos.14565 of 2019, 14566 of 2019 and 14567 of 2019 were filed by Mr. Dwarakanath seeking direction for conclusion of the proceedings initiated against him pursuant to Charge Memos dated 15.09.2017, 21.06.2017 and 27.11.2017, respectively, Mr. G. Krishna Rao had filed W.P.Nos.13476 of 2019 and 13520 of 2019 in relation to the proceedings

¶67

HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch

¶68

¶69

initiated against him pursuant to Charge Memos dated 17.01.2018 and 29.11.2018, respectively.

¶70

Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, submits that in the nature of the proceedings sought to be conducted, the learned single Judge ought not to have imposed time stipulation for conclusion of the departmental proceedings and ought not to have directed that the Charge Memos shall stand quashed on failure of conclusion of the enquiry within the time stipulated.

¶71

On the other hand, Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners, supported the orders of the learned single Judge and prayed for dismissal of the appeals.

¶72

On a query of the Court, it is submitted by Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda that till now, there is no further progress in the proceedings initiated against the writ petitioners.

¶73

9. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan , reported in (1998) 4 SCC

¶74

154 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed as follows:

¶75

“19. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined 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 the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the

¶76

HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch

¶77

¶78

disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay…..”

¶79

10. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamilnadu Housing Board,

¶80

reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636 , the basic facts were as follows: Charge Memo was issued in the year 2000 against the appellant who was working as Superintending Engineer in the Tamilnadu Housing Board for irregularity in issuing a sale deed in 1990. Though the records were very much available with the respondent Board, no action was taken for about 10 years. Though explanation was put forward by the Board for the inordinate delay in initiating departmental proceeding stating that the irregularities came to light in the audit report for the second-half of 19941995, the Apex Court did not find the explanation to be convincing and the same was construed to be an after-thought. In the above circumstances, the Apex Court was of the opinion that allowing the respondent Board to proceed further with the departmental proceeding at that distance of time would be prejudicial to the appellant.

¶81

In the instant cases, it is not the case of the appellants that the delay in conclusion of the departmental proceedings is in view of noncooperation of the writ petitioners. It is to be noted that there is long delay in the institution of departmental proceedings itself and even after retirement of the writ petitioners from service, no steps are being taken for conclusion of such proceedings.

¶82

On due consideration, we find no good ground to interfere with the orders of the learned single Judge and, accordingly, the writ appeals are

¶83

HCJ & NJS, J W.A.No.456 of 2021 & batch

¶84

¶85

dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

¶86

stand closed.

¶87

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶88

IBL

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Dwarakanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Dwarakanth

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Visakhapatnam Vs v Parvathi

P.T.Gopala Chari and Sons, Vs the State of Ap

Pola Bhaskar, Vs Shaik Shain Bi

M/s Cadd Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd, Vs Sri P. Basanth Kumar

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sri G.Krishna Rao

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sri G.Krishna Rao