Disposed

V. Rama Krishna, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Aug 2024WP/8925/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the prolonged delay (over 7 years) in initiating departmental disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner caused prejudice. The court directed the enquiring authority to conclude the proceedings within six months if the petitioner cooperates; otherwise, the proceedings would stand cancelled.

What did the court decide?

Directed the enquiring authority to conclude disciplinary proceedings within six months failing which proceedings shall stand cancelled automatically.

V. Rama Krishna, Vs State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 8925 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

V. Rama Krishna, S/o. Veeraju, aged about 50 years,^{workingDeputy} Executive Engineer, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana^SwamyVari Devasthanam, Annavaram, East Godavari District, R/o^Annavaram,

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Special Chief^{Secretary,Revenue} (Endowments) Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,^Guntur District.

¶12

Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Annavaram rep. by its Executive Officer.

¶13

Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Varla Devasthanam Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada rep.by its Executive Officer.

¶14

The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, Vijayawada

...Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of VVrit of Mandamus declaring proceedings in Rc.No.A1/895/2018-4 dated 15.10.2019 issued by the third respondent and the proceedings in Rc.No.A1/2876/2019 dated 04.11.2019 issued by the second respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Office Holders and Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 and contrary to the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India and set aside the same.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶22

<’v f Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the second respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, without reference to the charge memos issued in proceedings Rc.No.A1/895/2018-4 dated 15.10.2019 and Rc.No.A1/2876/2019 dated 04.11.2019 by the third and second respondents respectively, pending disposal of above W.P.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D V SASIDHAR

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

APHC010146292020

¶28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶29

[3310]

¶30

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶31

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 8925 OF 2020

Between;

V. Rama Krishna,

...PETITIONER

AND

State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

1.D VSASIDHAR

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.T BALAJI

¶45

2.GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

¶46

The Court made the following:

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia} “to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly^{oneinthenatureof} Wht of Mandamus declaring proceedings in Rc.No.A1/895/2018-4,^{dated15.10.2019} issued by the 3^ respondent and the proceedings in^{Rc.No.A1/2876/2019,dated} 04.11.2019 issued by the 2"^' respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to A. P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and^{EndowmentsOfficeHoldersand} Servants Punishment Rules, 1987 and contrary to the^{provisionsof Article14and16} of The Constitution of India and set aside the same^{andpasssuchotherandfurther} orders”.

¶49

Heard Mr. D.V.Sasidhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the 3^^^ respondent, the respondent submitted a report on 30.01.2013 in Vigilance Report No.13 recommending disciplinary action against the then Executive Engineer of the 3^'^ respondent. The 3'"' respondent issued show-cause notice dated 28.03.2018 to the petitioner directing him to explain why a stringent disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioner as proposed by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department. The petitioner has also submitted a letter to supply copies of the vigilance report and other related files. The petitioner has received a Charge Memo dated 15.10.2019 issued by the 3"'^ respondent through 2""' respondent dated 04.11.2019. The petitioner has also submitted explanation to the O'"* respondent dated 06.11.2019. The 2"'^ respondent with lot of delay i.e 9 years of completion of work and 7 years of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department report and when the petitioner ripped for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the vacant post at the 2"^ respondent, the petitioner challenged the Charge^Memo. The 1®* respondent has issued Charge Sheet to the then Executive Officer vide G.O.Rt.No.488, dated 29.05.2015 two years after the vigilance report dated 30.01.2013. The sole charge against him is that he has released an amount of Rs. 46,50,000/- towards advance payment to the contractor without any agreement of condition. The Enquiry Officer is not yet appointed so far and

¶51

¶52

r. >3

¶53

there is no progress in the enquiry, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶54

Mr. T. Balaji, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed to allow the writ petition, as there are allegations against the petitioner and same is under enquiry. Therefore, the respondents have an authority to conduct enquiry in the matter. Hence, requested to dismiss the same.

¶55

5. Perused the record.

¶56

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

¶57

Hon’ble Apex Court held follows:

¶58

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 hedeviatesfrom} this path, he is to suffer a penalty prescribed ”

¶59

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

¶60

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

¶61

reproduced hereunder:

¶62

I (1998) 4 see 154 ^ (2005) 6 see 636

¶63

■¥
i
-vi-v'

¶64

“ There is no acceptable explanation on the side of^{therespondent} explaining the inordinate delay in initiating departmental^{disciplinaryproceedings.} The stand taken by the respondent in the counter-affidavit^{isnotconvincingandis} only an afterthought to give some explanation for the^delay. (Paras 8 to 10)

¶65

Under the circumstances, allowing the respondent to^{proceedfurtherwith} the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will^{beveryprejudicialtothe} appellant. Keeping a higher government official under^{chargesofcorruptionofficer} concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against^{agovernmentemployee,} should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests^{oftheconfidence} in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it^{isnecessarytodrawthe} curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant^{hadalreadysuffered} account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter^offact. enough and more on the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due^{totheprotracteddisciplinary} than the punishment. For the mistakes proceedings would be much more committed by the department in the procedure for initiating^the disciplinary , proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer”. Therefore, the charge memo issued against the appellant^{isquashed.The} appellant will be entitled to all the retiral beneifts in accordance with law.”

¶66

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 and “Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Others”^; in the case of “(Roop Singh NEGI Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others”^ and also in

¶67

^ 2006(5) see 88 ■’(1993) 4 see 727 '(2010) 13 see 427 * (2009) 2 see 570

¶68

1 ^

¶69

¶70

the case of “Oriental Bank of Commerce and others Vs. S.S.Sheokand and Another”^

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondents framed charges against the petitioner and he submitted his explanation denying the charges. But no enquiry was initiated till yet, even after long elapse of several years. Therefore, there is inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and that the disciplinary action is liable to be set aside.

¶72

This Court observed that there is abnormal delay in stage to stage proceedings initiated by the respondents on the petitioner. The 3^'^ respondent show cause notice to the petitioner dated 28.03.2018 basing on the allegations for the year 2013. Further, the petitioner has submitted his explanation, so far no enquiry has been conducted till yet, which is the main grievance of the petitioner. Therefore, it appears that there is inordinate delay in concluding the enquiry. As could be seen from the record the respondents failed to conclude the proceedings within time frame and at the same time the respondent issued subsequent proceedings one after another to the petitioner and the petitioner also submitted explanation.

¶73

T \ /

¶74

Following the decisions cited supra and considering the submissions of both the counsel, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, while directing the Enquiring Authority to afford ample opportunity of

’(2014) 5 see 172

hearing of the petitioner by considering his objections with documentary evidence and pass appropriate reasoned order in accordance with iaw, within six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, faiiing which the discipiinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner shaii stands canceiied/ dosed automaticaiiy. it is made dear that the petitioner is directed to co-operate with the inquiring authority to conclude the proceedings within time frame as fixed.

¶79