Partly allowed

Gunnam Rama Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024WP/21237/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged inordinate delay in disciplinary proceedings pending since 2012, alleging violation of constitutional rights and requesting quashing or promotion. Court found delay unexplained but serious allegations warranted conclusion within six months, failing which proceedings stand quashed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to conclude enquiry within six months; if failed, impugned proceedings quashed.

Gunnam Rama Krishna Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADjrlArkAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 21237 OF 202^

¶6

Between:

¶7

^unnam Rama Krishna, S/o(Late)Appa Rao, Aged.57 years, Occ. Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Training Centre, Ongole, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶10

The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra. Pradesh Marigalagiri, A.P.

¶11

The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP),^{fortheStateofAndhra} Pradesh, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Secretary.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the

¶14

nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondentsin not concluding the proceedings that were pending since 2012 and instituted by the 3'"^ respondent vide TEC No. 16/2013, dt.06.12.2013 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16, 21, 300A, 309 and 311 of the Constitution of India and quash those proceedings as they are against^{theordersofthe} Honourable Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs M.D. Tamilnadu Housing Board and also the orders of this Honourable Court in W.P.No. 17544 of 2020, dt. 23.07.2021 and also declare that the petitioner is entitled to promotion to the Cadre of Additional Superintendent of Police with all consequential benefits or pass any other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances^ofthecase.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to promote the petitioner on regular basis without reference to the pendency of proceedings in Charge Memo No. 16/2013 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, GAD, Dt.01.11.2008an d as per the Judgment of this Honourable Court in W.P.No.17544//2020, dated.23.07.2021, pending disposal of the above Writ^Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. TATINENI BENERJEE

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents R1 to R2: GP FOR HOME DEPARTMENT

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent R3: NONE APPEARED

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

APHC010349112021

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶23

[3310]

¶24

THURSDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 21237 OF 2021

¶28

Between:

¶29

Gunnam Rama Krishna ...PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

1.TATINENI BENERJEE

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia}

¶39

“to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly^{oneInthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the proceedings that were pending since 2012 and instituted^{bythe3^'^respondentvide} TEC No.16/2013, dated 06.12.2013 as illegal, arbitrary'^{andviolativeofArticle14,} 16, 21, 300-A, 309 and 311 of the Constitution of india and quash those proceedings as thev are against the orders of the Hon’bie Supreme Court in P.V.Mahadevan v. M.D.Tamilnadu Housing Board and also the orders of this Hon’bie Court in W.P.No.17544 of 2020, dated 23.07.2021 and also declare^{thatthepetitioneris} entitled to promotion to the Cadre of Additional Superintendent^ofPolice with all consequential benefits and pass s‘ f"iiher orders’’.

¶40

Heard Ms. Samantha Krishna, learned counsel, representing Mr. Tatineni Benarjee, learned counsel for the petitioner^andMr.Shaik Rasheed Ahammed, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-I for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶41

It is the case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) in the year 1989 and after promoted to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 2013 after intervention by the learned Tribunal as at that time certain allegations were levelled against him in the year 2012. On 06.12.2013 the 3'^^ respondent had^{servedanoticevide} T.E.C.No.16 of 2013 asking to appear before him for Disciplinary Proceedings on 17.01.2014 with a charge on the said allegation. Subsequently, there was no progress in the matter till date. Due to which, his name was not considered for promotion, even though vacant sanctioned posts^{areavailableforobvious} reasons, though his name was shown at SI.No.6 in the panel of Deputy Superintendents of Police vide G.O.Ms.No.99, dated 31.08.2021. The proceedings pending against the petitioner since 2012 and the proceedings adjourned for 48 times i.e more than 9 years, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition came to^befiled.

¶42

Perused the record.

¶43

In the case of “State of A.P Vs. N. Radhakishan”^ wherein the

¶44

Hon’ble Apex Court held follows:

¶45

(1998) 4 see 154

¶46

19 The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously^andhe is not made to undergo without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings,^{thecourthastoconsider} 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. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employees. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance^{withtherules.} If he deviates from this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed ”

¶47

6. Further, in “P.V.Mahadevan Vs. Managing Director, T.N.Housing

¶48

Board”^ wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court was held at Paras 8 to 11, which

¶49

reproduced hereunder:

¶50

" There is no acceptable explanation on the side of the respondent explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings. The stand taken by the respondent in the counter-affidavit is not convincing and is only an afterthought to give some explanation for the delay. (Paras 8 to 10) Under the circumstances, 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 officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee, should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests^{oftheconfidence} 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^{amatteroffact,} 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”.

¶51

Therefore, the charge memo issued against the appellant is quashed. The

¶52

appellant will be entitled to all the retire! benefits^{inaccordancewithlaw.”}

¶53

^ (2005) 6 see 636

¶54

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed^{onrecordtheorder} of this Court dated 19.07.2021 passed in W.P.No.11776^{and11779of2021} wherein this Court has discussed the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.V.Bijilani Vs. Union of India" ^ ; “Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others Vs. B. Karunakar and others 4 99 and “Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Others”^;^inthecaseof “(Roop Singh NEGI Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others”^^andalso in the case of “Oriental Bank of Commerce and others Vs. S.S.Sheokand andAnother"\

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are pending without progress for about 9 years. Therefore, there is inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings and that the impugned proceedings dated 06.12.2013 issued by the 3 rd respondent is liable to be set aside.

¶57

No doubt, as per record it shows that there is abnormal delay in conducting proceedings against the petitioner since 2012 and failed to conclude the proceedings within time frame. Therefore,^{learnedcounsel} for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court dated 23.07.2021 in W.P.No.17544 of 2020 and submitted that the said order is squarely

¶58

^ 2006(5) see 88 ‘*(1993) 4 see 727 ^(2010) 13 see 427 ® (2009) 2 see 570 "(2014) 5 see 172

¶59

r L

¶60

applicable to the facts of this Court. Hence, requested to pass similar order in this Writ Petition also.

¶61

Following the decisions cited supra and considering, the submissions of both the counsel, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is unexplained delay and clear lethargy in the disposal of the proceedings against the petitioner by the respondents. However, serious allegations against the petitioner are involved and hence enquiry required to be concluded.

¶62

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of, while directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry initiated against the petitioner, within a period of six months from today, failing which the impugned proceedings instituted by the 3'"'^ respondent against the petitioner^{viceTECNo.16/2013,} dated 06.12.2013 shall stands quashed.

¶63

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶64

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand

¶65

closed.

¶66

SD/- G HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT R AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶67

To,

¶68

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶69

The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra. Pradesh Marigalagiri, A.P.

¶70

The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP),^{fortheStateofAndhra} Pradesh, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Secretary.

¶71

One CC to SRI. TATINENI BENERJEE Advocate [OPUC]

¶72

5, Two CCS to GP FOR HOME DEPARTMENT, High Court of^Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶73

Three CD Copies.

f 1

!»

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.21237 of 2021

io\
'ViX
G 1 APR 2325 feii
ir^'

¶81

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

Gunnam Rama Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunnam Rama Krishna v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balusu Bhanu Krishna Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M Phanidhar Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A.M.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mallipudi.Ravi Kumar, Vs .The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Karanam. Joseph Vinayakumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G. Anjaneyulu Reddy Vs The Executive Officer