Allowed

M.Raja Gopal Naidu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Oct 2023WP/30383/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of long-pending charge memos issued over 14 years prior. Relying on Supreme Court precedent regarding protracted disciplinary proceedings causing mental agony, the Court quashed all charges and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner's full retirement benefits and gratuity within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed six charge memos issued between 2008 and 2017; directed respondents to pay petitioner's full retirement benefits and gratuity within four weeks.

M.Raja Gopal Naidu Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶2

Writ Petition No.30383 of 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶6

“...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not dropping the impugned 6 (six) charge memos of the 1^st respondent vide Memo.No.B3/4372/2008, dated 28.11.2008 (14 years back), Memo No.B3/6807/2008, dated 09.02.2009 (ENC 13 years) and Memo.No.13111/ TW.Ser-II-2/2013-3, dated 26.05.2014 (8 years), G.O.Rt.No.286 TW.Ser.A2 Dept, Dated 03.07.2015 (7 years), G.O.Rt.No.510 TW.Ser.A1 Dept, dated 06.12.2017 (5 years) G.O.Rt.No.447 TW.Ser.A1 Dept, dated 18.10.2017 (5 years), though the petitioner submitted his explanation against the charge memos within time and not taking any action to close the disciplinary cases (though about 5 to 14 years have been lapsed) is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India including contrary to judgments of the Honourable Apex Court of India and also Memo No.889806 /TW.Ser/A1/2019 dt.27.5.2020 of the 1^st respondent hence the same are liable to be set aside and consequently direct the respondent authorities to drop six (6) charges as the petitioner has not involved as alleged allegations as mentioned in the charge

¶7

¶8

memos and not concluding/dropping the enquiries even after lapse of 14 years, 7 years and 5 years i.e., from the date of issuance of the charges in view of the facts of the case and judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in a case of State of A.P.. Versus N.Radha Krishna reported in 1998 (4) SCC Page 154, 2005 (6) SCC Page 636, and the orders of the Honourable High Court in W.P.No.1514/2020, dt.3.3.2020 and Memo No.889806/TW.Ser/A1/2019 dt.27.5.2020 of the 1^st respondent authority and to pass such...”

¶9

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 21.01.1983 by the Project Officer, ITDA Parvatipuram of Vizianagarm District and thereafter, in the year 1999, he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer(DEE) and was kept in full additional charge to the post of Executive Engineer(EE) ITDA (PTGCHENCHU), Srisailam from 03.04.2004 to 30.03.2006. Later, the petitioner was promoted as I/c. Executive Engineer on 01.04.2006 and worked up to 15.08.2007 in Tribal Welfare Division, Srisailam, which consists of a jurisdiction of 14 districts. While working as in-charge Superintending Engineer Tribal Welfare Department, he retired

¶10

from service on attaining the age of superannuation vide G.O.RT.No.148 Social Welfare(TW.Ser.A1) Department dated 30.04.2018.

¶11

¶12

While the matter being so, when the petitioner was working as I/C EE (TW) Srisailam, the department sanctioned one B.T. Road work from Nellikal to Nellikal Chenchu Colony and Tribal Welfare Residential School Complex at Tungaturi of Nalgonda District and after a lapse of 2 years, the Vigilance and Enforcement (V&E) department verified the works suomotively and made some remarks and submitted a report in the year 2008. On the basis of the report, 1^st respondent framed charges in the month of November 2008 to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 06.07.2009 denying the charges. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the rules and instructions given vide G.O.Ms.No.101, PR&RD Department, dated 21.03.2000, when a report is received from enquiry agencies, the concerned department has to conduct verification or enquiry through the internal quality control wing of the concerned department to know about the genuineness of the report in respect of assessment, but, without following such procedures, the respondent authorities have issued chargememo and no action has been taken on the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the chargememo, even after a laps of 13 years.

¶13

¶14

While the petitioner was working in various capacities, he was issued charge memos dated 28.11.2008, 09.02.2009, 26.05.2014, 03.07.2015, 06.12.2017 and 18.10.2017, for which the petitioner has submitted his detailed explanations within the time frame of the said charge memos. But, in spite of the same, even after a lapse of 14 years of the said charge memos, no subsequent action has been initiated by the respondents and because of the pendency of the said charge memos, though the petitioner is eligible and qualified for being promoted to the category of Regular Executive Engineer, Regular Superintending Engineer and further to the post of Engineer in Chief, his name was not considered for promotion to any of the above mentioned posts. In the year 2018, the petitioner got retired and made several representations to the 1^st respondent authorities regarding non-settlement of his retiremental benefits and requesting to pay all his retiremental benefits by dropping the charges, taking into consideration the explanations submitted to the charge memos, but, no orders have been passed till date.

¶15

As per G.O.Ms.No.679 (GAD Services-C) dated 01.11.2008, the Government issued instructions for expeditious competition of enquiries within a time of 3 months in simple

¶16

¶17

cases and 6 months in complicated cases. The case of the petitioner is that, though he has submitted his explanations to the impugned charge memos, even after lapse of 14 years, no subsequent action has been initiated on the same. Due to the pendency of the charge memo, though the petitioner is fully eligible and qualified for being promoted to the category of Regular Executive Engineer, Regular superintending Engineer and further to Engineer-in-chief, his name was not considered for promotion to any of the above-mentioned posts.

¶18

The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.1514 of 2020 challenging the 8 charge memos and for non-payment of his retirement benefits, which was disposed of on 03.03.2020 with the following direction:

¶19

“ Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported between P.V. Mahadevan Vs. Md.T.N. Housing Board, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the charge memo itself should be quashed on the basis of the delay. At this stage, this Court is not going into the merits of the matter, but this Court feels as the petitioner has retired on superannuation on 30.4.2018 and more than two years approximately passed, he has suffered enough. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay all the eligible retirement benefits of the petitioner including the gratuity without reference to the pendency of the charge memo etc, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”

¶20

¶21

The 1^st respondent, vide proceedings dated

¶22

27.05.2020 has informed the Engineer in Chief, Tribal Welfare that the Government has decided to file an appeal against the orders of this Court in W.P.No.1514 of 2020 and further informed him to request this Court to grant a period of six (6) months time for finalisation of all the charge memos. Against the orders of learned single Judge in W.P. 1514 of 2020 the respondent authorities have filed W.A.No.47 of 2021 which was dismissed on 22.03.2021. But, in spite of the same, the respondents neither have concluded the disciplinary proceedings, nor have dropped as per the evidence on record or even as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶23

The counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment rendered by the Apex Court in similar circumstances in the case of State of A.P. v. N. Radha Krishna reported in 1998(4) SCC 154, 2005(6) SCC 636, in respect of disciplinary cases. Also relied upon the judgment in P.V.Mahadevan v. MD.Tamil Nadu Housing Board¹ , wherein it is held as under:

¶24

“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

¶25

1 2005(6) SCC 636

¶26

¶27

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.

¶28

12. We, therefore, have no hesitation to quash the charge memo issued against the appellant. The appeal is allowed. The appellant will be entitled to all the retiral benefits in accordance with law. The retiral benefits shall be disbursed within three months from this date. No costs.”

¶29

Heard Sri. K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel

¶30

for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-2.

¶31

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was issued charge memos dated 28.11.2008, 09.02.2009, 26.05.2014, 03.07.2015, 06.12.2017 and 18.10.2017 and the petitioner has also submitted explanations for the same within the time stipulated. As no action is being initiated against the said charge memos, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1514 of 2020 before this Court, which was disposed of directing the respondents to pay all the eligible retirement benefits of the petitioner including the gratuity without reference to the pendency of the charge

¶32

¶33

memo etc, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the same, the Government has preferred an appeal vide W.A.No.47 of 2021 which was dismissed on 22.03.2021. Though the writ appeal preferred by the Government was dismissed and in spite of there being an order from this Court, the respondents have failed to pay the eligible retiremental benefits of the petitioner.

¶34

As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan v. MD.Tamil Nadu Housing Board (referred

¶35

supra), even in the present case, the petitioner has suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner shall not suffer.

¶36

In view of the fact that the disciplinary proceedings were not concluded even after a lapse of 14 years and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan

¶37

v. MD.Tamil Nadu Housing Board, this Court feels it appropriate to quash all the charge memos issued against the petitioner and to direct the respondents to pay all the retirement benefits to the petitioner including the gratuity, without

¶38

¶39

reference to the pendency of the charge memos, within a period

¶40

of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41