Dr Y Venkataiah Vs the State of Ap

DR Y VENKATAIAH, S/O Y.JANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, ASST. PROFESSOR (OPHTHALMOLOGY) KURNOOL MEDICAL COLLEGE, KURNOOL, H.No. 46/683/H1, BUDHWARPET, KURNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH..

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, HANUMANPETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL, KURNOOL MEDICAL COLLEGE KURNOOL

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

2

¶19

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 declare the action of the Respondents in not concluding the Departmental proceedings by issuing Articles of Charges vide G.O.Rt.No.1492 dated 29.10.2010 is contrary to the procedure prescribed vide G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd Respondent to declare the Probation of the petitioner and to pass such other orders.

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

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 2nd respondent to declare the Probation of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such other orders.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.S APPADHARA REDDY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.15373 of 2025

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in not concluding the departmental enquiry initiated vide G.O.Rt.No.1492, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (VC-1) Department, dated 29.10.2010 after lapse of 15 years, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon and joined in PHC at Gangavaram (T), East Godavari District in the year 2008. Thereafter, on 14.12.2008 the Petitioner was posted to Boduluru PHC (FAC). While so, on 12.12.2009 the ACB officials had conducted surprise check at Boduluru PHC and issued a Charge-Memorandum against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.1492, dated 29.10.2010 alleging that while the Petitioner was working as Medical Officer (FAC) at Boduluru PHC from 14.12.2008 to 12.12.2009 failed to maintain records/Registers properly and failed to attend the duties properly and was unauthorizedly absent without leave or permission from his superiors.

¶33

4

¶34

The Article of Charge was sought to be sustained on the basis of surprise check, Attendance Registers and four named witnesses mentioned in Annexures III and IV of the Charge-Memorandum.

¶35

The Petitioner submitted his explanation to the Charge-Memo on 10.01.2011 stating that on 11.12.2009 i.e. the previous day of surprise check by the ACB officials, the Petitioner was touring in the hill top village under Addarivalasa Sub Centre area and organizing the health activities and halted during that night due to which he was unable to attend the duty at the time of surprise check on 12.12.2009. As regards non-maintenance of Registers and Records, the Petitioner submitted that as the ACB officials had taken the Records, he is not in a position to reply on these aspects. Though, the explanation was given by the Petitioner on 10.01.2011, there was no progress in the enquiry. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S. Raju appearing for the Respondents on instructions submits that pursuant to ACB surprise check, a decision was taken to initiate departmental enquiry against the Petitioner and three other Officers and the delay in conclusion of departmental enquiry is non-furnishing of explanation by the Petitioner as on date despite several reminders.

¶37

5

¶38

Learned counsel for the Petitioner M/s. S. Appadhara Reddy submits that the Charge-Memorandum issued against the Petitioner does not mention any common enquiry to be conducted, but the charge against the Petitioner was stand alone charge and in the absence of any common disciplinary proceedings, the explanation to the delay cannot be sustained.

¶39

It is further submitted that the delay of 15 years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings per se cannot be sustained and contends that very continuation of departmental proceedings is a punishment and no further enquiry would be required in this case.

¶40

Heard the respective counsel.

¶41

The Charge-Memorandum issued against the Petitioner on 29.10.2010 does not mention any common enquiry to be conducted. The charge against the Petitioner was stand alone charge vis-a-vis his duties as Civil Assistant Surgeon (FAC) at Buduluru PHC. For better appreciation, the Article of charge is extracted below:

¶42

‘Dr. Yeddula Venkataiah, Slo Janayya, Aged 29 years, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Boduluru, Maredumilli Mandal, East Godavari District joined in Government service as Medical officer in Medical & Health Department on 01-05-2008 and Posted at PHC, Gangavaram (Agency), East Godavari District. Subsequently he hold Full Additional Charge of Medical Officer,

¶43

6

¶44

PHC Boduluru on 14-12-2008 and while working as Medical Officer. Boduluru from 14-12-2008 to 12-12-2009 he failed to maintain records/Registers properly and failed to attend the duties properly and was un-authorizedly absent without leave or permission from his superiors on the day of surprise check i.e. on 12-12-2009 and kept the expired anti snake venom in ILR and allowed the Maternity Assistant to attend to the patients in his absence and presence also and thereby committed grave misconduct.”

¶45

A reading of the above charge shows that the charge against the Petitioner is not serious in nature. There is no reason for the Respondent-authorities to keep the Charge-Memo pending for almost 15 years contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022, wherein time frames were fixed for conclusion of the enquiry.

¶46

A Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.17569 of 2020 had meticulously considered all the catena of the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this aspect apart from other Judgments on the same line and observed at Paragraph No.27 thereof by crystallizing the factors that need to be taken into consideration for quashing a charge-memorandum on account of inordinate delay. The paragraph No.27 thereof is extracted below;

¶47

7

¶48

“27. A perusal of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would show that the factors that need to be taken into account while dealing with the question whether the proceedings should be quashed or not, on the ground of delay, are as follows:

¶49

1) Whether the seriousness of the charges are such that delay is not sufficient to quash the proceedings;

¶50

2) Whether there is inordinate delay between the event and the initiation of disciplinary proceeding;

¶51

3) Whether the lapse of time from the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding to the completion of the proceeding is beyond the normal;

¶52

4) Whether there is any explanation for such delay.

¶53

5) Whether any part of the delay was on account of the public servant.

¶54

6) Whether the delay has caused prejudice to the case of the Public servant.

¶55

It would not be necessary that all the above factors have to be fulfilled before a proceeding can be quashed. The Court would have to evaluate the facts and then take a decision. As cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the above factors are non exhaustive as each case would have to be considered on the facts of that case and there can be no fixed matrix to determine the question “to quash or not to quash”.

¶56

8

¶57

After referring to all the Judgments the learned Single Judge while referring to the Judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v.

¶58

N. Radhakrishan¹ held that the balance has to be struck between the right of the public servant for expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings as against the fact that disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course.

¶59

As stated above, the charge against the Petitioner is not serious and there is absolutely no semblance of explanation for the delay. This Court does not find any reason to continue the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner.

¶60

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the Charge-memo issued vide G.O.Rt.No.1492, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (VC-1) Department, dated 29.10.2010 is hereby quashed.

¶61