Allowed

Kagolanu Venkateswara Prasad v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Mar 2022WP/14678/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to conclude pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within two months. The delay exceeding 14 years was held to violate the right to speedy trial under Article 21, without examining the merits of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within two months.

Kagolanu Venkateswara Prasad Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.14678 of 2020

¶3

JUDGMENT:-

¶4

Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for all the respondents.

¶5

The petitioner has approached this Court for the following relief:

¶6

“ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not concluding the enquiry against the petitioner initiated by the 3^rd respondent through Charge Memo proceedings No.RC.A1/1562/2007, dated 08.10.2007, inspite of lapse of 13 years as being illegal, arbitrary and violation of Artciles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conclude the enquiry initiated by the 3^rd respondent through charge memo proceedings No.RC.A1/1562/2007, dated 08.10.2007, forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶7

3 . The petitioner is served with a charge memo vide proceedings No.RC.A1/1562/2007, dated 08.10.2007. The grievance raised is that even after expiry of more than 14 years, the disciplinary proceedings are still pending against the petitioner and has not been finalized.

¶8

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Enquiry Officer has concluded his enquiry and the Enquiry Report has been submitted before the 2^nd respondent, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District on 04.02.2020 and the matter is pending before the respondent No.2.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no information on any such Enquiry Report nor any show cause notice against the finding of the enquiry report has been served.

¶11

The disciplinary proceedings were initiated way back in the year 2007 and since then more than 14 years have passed, but the disciplinary proceedings are still pending and have not been brought to the logical end.

¶12

Right to speedy trial flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty. The legal expectation and expedition and diligence be present at every stage of criminal trial and fortiori in departmental enquiry, has been emphasized by the Honorable Supreme Court on numerous occasions.

¶13

8. In Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India through its

¶14

Secretary and another¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under in paragraph 10, the relevant part of which is being reproduced as under:

¶15

“10 The Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of nolle persequi, an indefinite but ominous and omnipresent postponement of civil or criminal prosecution in Klapfer vs. State of North Carolina 386 U.S. 213 (1967). In Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 the Constitution Bench of this Court unequivocally construed the right of speedy trial as a fundamental right, and we can do no

¶16

1 AIR 2015 SC 2389

¶17

¶18

better the extract these paragraphs from that celebrated decision -

¶19

" 86 The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and revision so that any possible prejudice that may result from impermissible and avoidable delay from the time of the commission of the offence till it consummates into a finality, can be averted. In this context, it may be noted that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is properly reflected in Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

This Court in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar while dealing with Article 21 of the Constitution of India has observed thus:

¶21

"No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article

¶22

There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21. Would he be entitled to be released unconditionally freed from the charge levelled against him on the ground that trying him after an unduly long period of time and convicting him after such trial would constitute violation of his fundamental right under Article 21."

¶23

11 The legal expectation of expedition and diligence being present at every stage of a criminal trial and a fortiori in departmental inquiries has been emphasised by this Court on numerous occasions. The Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225, underscored that this right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution…….”

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the controversy with respect to the charges, this petition is finally disposed of with direction to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District/respondent No.2 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two (02) months from the date copy of this order

¶25

¶26

is produced before the said authority in accordance with law and

¶27

with due observance of the principles of natural justice.

¶28