Y Venkataiah Vs the State of Ap

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

W.P.Nos.10301, 11805, 18689 and 29378 of 2024

COMMON ORDER :

As the issue in all the writ petitions is common and the Petitioner is one and the same, all the writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

¶5

W.P.No.10301 of 2024 is filed to declare the charge memo dated 13.09.2022 issued by 2^nd Respondent proposing to initiate departmental enquiry against the Petitioner four years after the alleged incident dated 22.07.2017 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶6

W.P.No.11805 of 2024 is filed to declare the charge memo dated 12.09.2022 issued by 2^nd Respondent proposing to initiate departmental enquiry against the Petitioner four years after the alleged incident dated 17.09.2018 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶7

W.P.No.18689 of 2024 is filed to declare charge memo dated 27.12.2021 issued by 2^nd Respondent and consequential memo dated 14.06.2024 issued by Respondent No.3 proposing to initiate departmental enquiry against the Petitioner five years after the alleged incident of the year 2015-16 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶8

2

¶9

W.P.No.29378 of 2024 is filed to declare the action of Respondents in not releasing the retirement benefits and regular pension with all consequential benefits to the Petitioner inspite of proposals sent by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.2 dated 17.09.2024 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶10

The Petitioner was appointed as Hostel Warden in the year 1985 through the proceedings of the District Collector dated 09.10.1985. Subsequently, in the year 2016, he was promoted as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I and further promoted as Assistant B.C. Welfare Officer in the year 2019. Later, on 05.05.2020 he was further promoted as District B.C. Welfare Officer and in the year

¶11

2021 he was re-designated as District B.C. Welfare and Empowerment Officer and has been discharging duties ever since as such.

¶12

While so, charge memos were issued to the Petitioner with an inordinate delay of four and half years for the alleged incidents took place in the year 2015-16 and 2017-18. In the course of time, Petitioner retired from service on 30.08.2024 on attaining superannuation. As no steps are taken by the Respondents for conclusion of the charges and release of pension, the present writ petitions are filed.

¶13

3

¶14

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Government has provided timeline for concluding departmental enquiries specifically three months in case of simple cases and six months in case of complex cases in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2009 read with G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 and Respondents were not adhering

¶15

to the aforesaid timelines in concluding the enquiry. During the course of argument, learned counsel restricted his argument for expeditious conclusion of the departmental proceedings and retirement benefits.

¶16

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondents on the other hand submits that enquiry would be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

¶17

Having heard the respective counsel and taking note of the fact that there is no progress in the departmental enquiry contrary to the time frame as fixed vide G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petitions, with the consent of both the counsel at admission stage, with following directions:

¶18

(i) The Respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶19

4

¶20

(ii) In the event, the departmental enquiry is not concluded within the time specified, the Respondents shall release the retirement benefits in entirety to the Petitioner without further reference to the orders of this Court.

¶21

(iii) The disciplinary authority as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be personally answerable, in the event enquiry is not concluded within the time frame referred above.

¶22

(iv) In the interregnum, the Respondents shall forthwith pay provisional pension, admissible gratuity of 80% as provided under G.O.Rt.No.1097, dated 22.06.2000 and other retirement benefits

¶23

which cannot be withheld on account of departmental enquiry.

¶24

(v) No order as to costs.

¶25

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed.

¶26

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶27

Date: 06.11.2025 KLP

Y Venkataiah v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y Venkataiah v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr K Sarjan Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

R N Ramani Pushpa Vs the State of Ap

Dr. Mitta China Obaiah, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Karra Hema Maheswara Rao Vs the State of Ap

P. Sparjan Raju, Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

Y Venkataiah Vs the State of Ap