C. Rama Krishnappa Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C. RAMA KRISHN A PPA, S/O. LATE CHINNA HANUM A NTHE GOWD, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC RETIRED JUNIOR LECTURER/ PRINCIPAL FAC, R /O. 4/56, JAKKEPALLI, MADAKA S IRA MANDAL, PO GUDDAMPAL L I, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DI S TRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION (IE) D EPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, SECRETARIAT, VELGA P UDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522238.

¶14

THE COMMISSIO N ER OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, ESW A R ELITES, BESIDE THE S O NA VISION, TADEPALLI, GUN T UR DISTRICT 522501.

¶15

THE REGIONAL J O INT DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIAT E EDUCATION, KADAPA, YSR KA D APA DISTRICT 516004.

¶16

GOVERNMENT V O CATIONAL JUNIOR COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIP A L, (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS G OVERNMENT JUNIOR COLLEG E , MADAKASIRA), NOW MADAKASI R A, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, A N DHRA PRADESH, PREVIOUSLY A NANTHAPUR DISTRICT.-515301 .

¶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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent authorities not taking any action to dispose of the disciplinary proceedings pending against the Petitioner vide impugned Rc.No.VOC.I-1/179- 45/2006 dated 11.03.2006 even after completion of enquiry vide Rc.No.VOC.B-2/179/2006-2 dated 22.10.2007, not passing orders to drop the disciplinary proceedings by extending the benefit of Memo No.2150287/IE-A1/2 023-6 dated 31.03.2024 even after lapse of 18 - 20 years and not fixing the pension and other retieremental benefits on par with similarly situated persons like the Petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violation of Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the G.O.Ms.679, General Administration (Services-C ) Department, dated 01.11.2008, hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside and consequently direct the respondent authorities to drop the further course of action in respect of departmental proceedings initiated vide Rc.No.VOC.I-1/179-45/2006 dated 11.03.2006 by extending the benefit of Memo No.2150287/IE-A1/2023-io dated 31 .03.2024 as the proceedings are pending about 18 to 20 years and consider the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High Court in W.P.No.29456 of 2009 dated 12.08.20 16 in view of the regularisation of the petitioner service vide G.O.Ms.No.126, HE (IE.l.2) Department dated 26.12.2001 and pay the pension and other pensionery benefits to the petitioner with all consequential benefits and pass such other orders.

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 respondent authorities to pay the pension and other pensionery benefits by extending the benefit of Memo No. 2150287/I E-A1 /2023-6 dated 31.03.2024 by dropping the impugned Proceedings vide Rc.No. VOC.I-1/17945/2006 dated 11.03.2006 as per the orders passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.29456 of 2009 dated 12.08.2016, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass such other orders.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 17807 OF 2026

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the delay in concluding the departmental proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.VOC.I-1/179-45/2006, dated 11.03.2006 and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

The Petitioner was initially joined as a Part-Time Junior Lecturer in Sericulture at Government Junior College, Kalyandurg, Anantapur District on 06.02.1989. Subsequently, the Petitioner’s services were regularized vide G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 26.12.2001. Thereafter, regularization proceedings were withdrawn, as the Petitioner did not have requisite qualification at the time of entering into service. Questioning the same, the Petitioner filed O.A.No.6205 of 2007 on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal.

¶33

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Respondents filed W.P.No.29456 of 2009 and the same was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 12.08.2016 directing that the order passed by the Tribunal shall be acted upon expeditiously after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶34

While so, departmental enquiry was initiated against the Petitioner, wherein an Article of Charge was framed, which reads as under:

¶35

4

¶36

“Article of Charge-I:-

¶37

That said Sri C. Ramakrishnappa, was engaged as Part Time Junior Lecturer in Sericulture Vocational Course, Government Junior College, Madakasira on 06.02.1989 with qualification of only 3^rd Class B.Sc., P.G Diploma in Sericulture at the time of appointment. Whereas 1^st or 2^nd Class Degree of B.Sc (Agriculture) with Sericulture specialization is required to hold the post. Further his services were regularized commuting the service rendered in the college for the period from 06.02.1989 to 31.03.1989 and from 03.08.1992 onwards which is against to the conditions laid down by the Government with regard to Regularization. Hence Regularization of his services and payment of salary in regular time scale is irregular and without eligibility and contrary to Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

¶38

In short, the allegation against the Petitioner was that he was appointed without having requisite qualification. Though an enquiry was concluded in the year 2017, no further action was taken thereafter. In view of the orders of the Tribunal, the Petitioner was continued as regular employee in the Respondent/College. Due to passage of time, the Petitioner was retired from service in the year 2024. However, retirement benefits were not paid to the Petitioner due to pendency of the above mentioned Charge-Memo.

¶39

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III for the Respondents, passed on instructions, issued by Regional Joint Director for Intermediate Education and would submit that retirement benefits were kept on hold technically due to pendency of departmental proceedings.

¶40

5

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Services-III for the Respondents.

¶42

In examining cases seeking quashing of a Charge-Memorandum on account of delay, the emphasis is on the gravity of the charges. The charges, as extracted above, are not serious enough to keep the enquiry pending for such a long time.

¶43

In M.V.Bijlani v Union of India¹ , it was held that initiation of a departmental enquiry after a lapse of six (6) years and continuation for a period of seven (7) years is itself prejudicial to the delinquent. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. Managing Director, Tamilnadu Housing Board² , the delay of ten (10) years in initiation of enquiry was held to be pre-judicial and the Charge-Memorandum was quashed. A similar view was taken in

¶44

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Bani Singh and Another³ .

¶45

In view of the above, pendency of the Charge-Memorandum for 20 years on charges which are not serious cannot be sustained and the Charge-Memorandum is liable to be quashed. Further, the delay in conclusion of departmental proceedings and delay in payment of retirement benefits from 2024 to the Petitioner is, by itself, a penalty/punishment, and no further penalty/punishment is called for.

¶46