Allowed

Syed Arif Mohiuddin v. The Commissioner of Police

Telangana HC20 Apr 2022WP/2484/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the issuance of a charge memo after a 12-year delay. The Court held that the unexplained inordinate delay vitiated the departmental proceedings and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to the impugned memo.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Memorandum/Article of charge dated 31.01.2019 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent without reference to the impugned mem

Syed Arif Mohiuddin Vs The Commissioner of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO :2484 OF 2019

¶7

B etwee n:

¶8

syed Arif Mohiuddin, s/o. Late Syed Gousuddin, Age 48 years, occ: senior Assistant, O/o.City Security Wing, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Commissioner of^police, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Additional commissioner of police, Administration, o/o. the commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director Generar of^porice, state of rerangana, Lakadikapoor, Hyderabad.

¶14

The State of Telangana, rep. by its principal Secretary, Home (police) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.22.

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances 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 IVandamus by declaring the entire action of the respondents, particularly the action of the 1't respondent for issurng the present impugned Memorandum/Article of charge in PR No. 02l20ig No.L and olBllssll2ooT Dt. 31.1.2019 for the issue related to dt. 25.8.2oo7 after more than 12 years period is as highry iilegar, arbitrary, unjust, colourable exercise of power, vindictive attitude, and contrary to various judicial pronouncements in the subject matter including contrary to Govt. instructions in the matter of concruding the disciplinary proceedings and if necessary set aside the same on the ground of inordinate delay and laches which has caused prejudice to the petitioner and consequenfly direct the respondents to

¶17

¶18

¶19

consider the case of the^petitioner for further^{promotion to the postof} Superintendent and above without reference to the^{presentimpugned} Memorandum/Article of Charge in PR No. 0212019^{No.L and O/BB/558/2007dL} 31 .1 .2019 of the 1st respondent, as his^{immediate junior was promotedas} Superintendent as on 24.1¹ .20'18 itself with all^{consequential benefits.}

¶20

LA.NO:1 OF 2019

¶21

Petiiion Under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to suspend} the operation of the impugned Memorandum/Article^{of Charge in PR No. 0212019} No.L and O/BB /558/2007 dt. 3"1 .1 .2019 of the 1st^{respondent, whichis issued after} a lapse of 12 years^period for the issue related to^{dt. 25.8.2007to enablethe} petitioner to get further promotion to the post of Superintendent and above

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA^RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents : GP^{FOR HOME}

¶24

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSENREDDY}

¶26

RIT PE^{TITI ONNo. 2484of2019}

¶27

QBD.EE:

¶28

This writ^{petition is filed aggrievedby the impugned} Memorandum/Article^{of charge In PR'No'02/2019 (No'L&o/88/} issued^{bY the 1't resPondentin} 558/2007)^{dated 31'01 2019} connection^{with an incidentthat occurredin August' 2007 i'e'' after} a lapse^{of 12 years period from the date of that incident'allegedly} for the^{purposeof denying legitimate promotionto the petitioner to} the^{postof OfficeSuperintendent and to circumvent common orders} of the^{Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad'in} O.A.Nos.7872^{of 2013 and 3306 of 2Ot4' dated 09'OB'2016' and} the contempt^{proceedingsinitiated in C'C'No'68010of 2018'}

¶29

2.ThepetitionerwasinitiallyappointedaSoffice Subordinate^{with effect from 19'04'1990and subsequently he was} promoted as^{Junior Assistant with effect from 22'03'1993' His} services^{were regularised in the said cadre' The petitionerpassed} all departmental^{tests' Itis stated that since the date of his} appointment,^{the petltionerhas beendischarginghis duties} sincerely'^{The grievanceof the petitioneris that after a lapse of} more than^{12 yearsfrom the date of an incidentthat occurredin} August,^{2007, he was issued impugnedMemorandu m/Articleof}

¶30

¶31

l\IP.No.2484 of20t9 BVR,]

¶32

charge onry to deny his regitimate promotion as office Superintendent.

¶33

¶34

It is alleged that during the year 2013, the respondents tried to fill up three existing vacancies in the cadre of Senior Assistant with juniors by denying promotion to the petitioner on the ground that charge memo dated 05.0g.2009 was pending against the petitioner for non-submission of his annual property return statements as contemplated under Rule 9 (7) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The petitioner filed O.A.No.7872 of 2013 before the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short,^,the Tribunal,). The Tribunal passed interim orders on 11.11.2013, wherein a direction was given to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in the existing vacancies without reference to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings initiated vrde charge memo dated 0S.08.2009, as the post of Senior Assistant is a nonselection post. However, due to erection schedure, the vacancies in the cadre of Senior Assistant were not filled up. In the year 2014, one vacancy in the cadre of Senior Assistant arose due to promotion of one Senior Assistant to the level of Superintendent. At that point of time, the authorities issued another charge memo dated 13.03.2014 under Rule 22 of the Andhra pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (,Rules

¶35

IL.

¶36

WP.No.2484^of2019 BVR..J

¶37

¶38

1991-' for^{brevity) by entertainingfalse complaints from the} expelled^{membersof the MosqueCommittee' The petitionerwas} constrained^{to file O'A'No'3306of 2014 beforethe Tribunal' In the} said O.A.,^{interim ordersdated 13'05'2014 were passedin favour} of the^{petitionerdirectingthe respondents to consider the caseof} the^{petitioner for promotionto the post of Senior Assistantin the} existingorfutureVacanciessubjecttoeligibilityandSeniority.

¶39

It is contended^{that despite the above clear directions} from the^{Tribunal, ignoringthe case of the petitioner'six vacancies} in the cadre^{of Senior Assistant were filled' out of which'three} juniors vlz., B'^{MuraliKrishna' Smt'E''l M' Jayasri and Venkata} R?mana^{were promoted as SeniorAssistants by proceedings dated} 05.11.2014'^{As there was no alternative'the petitionerfiled} contempt^{applications in C'A'No 21 of 2015 in O A No 7872 of 2013} and C.A.No'22^{of 2015 in o A No'3306 ot 2Ol4' The petitioneralso} filed^{petitions for amendment of prayers seekingnotionalpromotion} and other^{consequential benefits on par with the above juniorsAt} that^{point of time, the respondents consideredthe case of the} petitioner as^{Senior Assistant by order dated13'02'2015' after} receiving^{notices in the contempt applications'}

¶40

¶41

¶42

wP No.2484 of20 t9 BVR,J

¶43

it is stated that O,As. were finally disposed of by the order dated 09.08.2016 with the following observations:

¶44

"POINT⁽ⁱ⁾

¶45

... ... Therefore, I am of the view that the action oF the applicant in not granting notional promotion as Senior Assistant to the applicant on par with his immediate junior bad in law. Therefore, I hold that the applicant is entitled for notional promotion on par with his junior with all consequential be nefits Th is point is answered accord ing ly.

¶46

POI N T⁽ ii) : For the reasons stated under point (i), both the O.As are disposed of wjth a directjon to the respondents to accord promotion to the applicant in the cadre of Senior Assistant, on par with his immediate junior B. Murali Krishna, with notional benefjts, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the CA and the VMA are closed."

¶47

The petitioner submitted that the above orders have attained finality. Consequent upon withdrawal of the complaints, further action was dropped in pursuance oF charge memo dated 73.03.20L4. in respect of the other charge memo dated 05.08.2009, the punishment of censure was awarded vide G.O.Rt.No.70 dated 02.02.2015. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal petition. The same was allowed setting aside the punishment of censure. Later, further action was dropped ylde G.O.Rt.No.491 dated 26.04.2017 by the Government. Even though

¶48

l=-

¶49

wP No.2484 of20l9 BVR,J

¶50

¶51

the Tribunal^{was pleased to dispose of O'As on 09'08'2016'} whereunderadirectionwasgiventotherespondentstoaccord promotion to^{the petitioner in the cadreof SeniorAssistant'on par} with his^{immediatejunior B' Murali Krishna'with notional benefits'} the respondents^{utterly failed to complywith the aboveorders of} the Tribunal.^{Thereupon,the petitioner filed contempt application} inC'C.No.680l0of20lS.ThesaidcontemptCaseisstillpending.

¶52

It is submitted^{that while the matterstood thus' Smt'} E.J.M. Jayasri,^{immediatejunior of the petitioner' was further} promoted to the^{post ofSuperintendenl vide ordersdated} 24.t:.2O.:8,^{ignoringthe case of the petitioner'The petitionerflled} W.P.No.43557^{of 2018 seeking a directionto consider his case for} promotion to^{the post of Superintendentin the existing vacancies'} The said^{writ petitionis pendingfor consideration'}

¶53

B Even though^{the petitionerwas promotedas Senior} probation was^not Assistant^{with eFfectfrom 13'02'2015'his} 3^{years 11 months} declared^{even after he rendered morethan} service in^{the cadre of Senior Assistant'}

¶54

9 In the^{year2007, one Sri P' BalyaNaik'Constable'} lodged^{acomplaint with Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB)officials} alleging that^{the petitionerdemandedbribe for his pay fixation'} Trap^{proceedingswereconductedon 25.08'2007'The petitioneris}

¶55

6 wP.No.2481 of20l9 BVR.J

¶56

not the authority to fix individual pay, as he was only working as lunior Assistant at that point of time. Much before the said complaint, a note was put up on 18.08.2007 itself and the Unit Officer has approved the said draft with regard to pay fixation on 20.08.2007 and also signed on fair copy of pay fixation order on 23.08.2AO7 itself. However, the trap proceedings were unsuccessful. The ACB officials wrote a letter to the Government.

¶57

It is further stated that the Government, vide orders in G.O.Ms.No.165 Home (SC.A) Department dated 25.06.2010, observed that as per the remand diary prepared by the ACB after the trap, the chemical test did not yield posiilve result; that further, the complainant reported that the accused Officer did not take the amount, but asked him to keep it in his table drawer and the same was mentioned in the FIR; that these points strengthen the argument of the accused Officer that the solution remained colourless; that further it reveals from the record that the note orders on the pay fixation of the police Constable were taken on 20.08.2007; that fair copy of the order was also ready by 23.08.2007 i.e., much in advance by the time trap was conducted on 25.08.2007; that this also disproves the version of the pollce constable in his complaint that the accused Officer told him that his fixation would not be done until he pays the bribe; and that ultimately, the Government ordered to initiate departmental action

¶58

¶59

[--=

¶60

WP.No.2484 of20l9 7 BVR,J

¶61

¶62

against the^{petitionerby duly withdrawing the case from the} Tribunal for disciplinary^proceedings.

¶63

It is also^{stated that basing on the final reports' the} ACB Court, by^{order dated08.12.2010in Crime No' 23/ACB-} CBI/2007 was^{pleased to closethe FIR by recordingthe final report} submitted by the^{ACB officials. Afterlapseof more than 12 years} impugned period from the alleged^incident,the Memorandu m/Article^{of charge dated 31'01'2019wasissued} initiating departmental^{action and the petitionerwas called to} submit his expla^nation.

¶64

The case^{of the petitioner is that the incidentalleged} ln the impugned^{order occurred in the year 2007'The Government} dropped criminal^{proceedingsvide G'O'Ms'No'165dated} 25.06.2010^{ordering departmental action' Therespondentswere} silent for all these^{years' Merely because the contemptcasebeing} C.C.No.68010 of^{2018 was filed for non-implementationof orders} of the Tribunal^{in O.A.Nos.7B7z of 2Ol3 & 3306 of 2014' dated} 09.08.2016,^{the impugned Memorandum/Article of charge is issued} to cause wrongful^{loss to the petitioner'}

¶65

13 Heard lvlr. S.^{Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for} Ivlr. t\4^. v. Rama Rao, tearned^SPecial the^{petitioner,and} Government^{Pleader for Home, and perused the materialon record'}

¶66

\ P \o : !S.l ira:1-r !) Il\ ti .r

¶67

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in similar circumstances, the Honourable Apex Court in State of M.P v. Bani Singhl, state of A.P. v, N. Radhakishan2, P. V. Mahadevan v. M.D., Tamil Nadu Housing Board3, and M. V. Bijlani v. Union of Indiaa, and deprecated the practice of delay in disciplinary proceedings and came to the conclusion that inordinate delay causes prejudice to the delinquent Officer unless he is blamed for the delay. The petitioner lost two promotions despite favourable orders passed in his favour by the Tribunal. The complalnt of P. Balya Naik, Constable, was found to be false and the criminal proceedings were closed. There is delay of eight years in initiating disciplinary proceedings. There is no^{justification} for continuing the proceedings. W.P.No.43557 of 2018 was flled by the petitioner seeking a direction for consideration of his case as Superintendent notionally on par with his^junior and the writ petition is pending. On account of filing of contempt case in C.C.No.68010 of 2018, the impugned Memorandum / Article of charge is issued for the incident related to August, 2007.

¶69

Learned Special Government Pleader for Home submitted that the^petitioner was^placed under suspension vide D.O.No.227 dated 30.08.2007 on the charges of being caught red-

¶70

'^{AtR 1990 sc t3o8}

¶71

'?^{rees1a; scc rsa}

¶72

'zoos 1oy^{scc o:o} o zooo 1s; scc ts

¶73

WP.N0.2484^of2019 9 BVR,J

¶74

¶75

handed by^{the officials of ACB when he demandedand accepted} bribe amount^{of Rs.1,000/- fromSri Balya Naik' for attending to his} pay fixation work.^{Crime No' 23/ACB-CR/2007 was registered} against thb^{petitioner for the offence under Section 7 of the} Prevention^{of Corruption Act, 1988' Subsequently'the petitioner} was relnstated^{into service'The Governmenl'videG'O Ms'No 269'} Home^{(SC,A) Department dated23 05'2009' have sent the Article} of charge^{on two charges agalnst the petitioner'While oral enquiry} in that regard^{was inProgress' the} Government^vide G.O.Ms.No.165^{Home (SC A)Department} dated^25.06.2010 decided to^{withdrawthe case before the Tribunal for disciplinary} proceedings and^{directed the Director General'ACB' to furnish} Articles of^{charge on the allegation of corruption' In complianceof} thedirections,draftArticleofchargeswasframedagainstthe petitioner vlde^{letter C.No'166/RCT-CR-212O7-S.2dated26 08'2010} of the Director^{General, ACB,A'P' Hyderabad'The draft Article of} chargeswasframedonthreecountsi.e.,(1)allegationofnonsubmission^{of Annual Property Returnsto the competent authority} (2) allegation^{of non-maintenanceof personalregister and (3)} allegation^{ofcorruptionofacceptingRs'1'000/- asillegal} gratification from^{ARPC2463 for doing officlalfavour' Enquiry} Officer submitted^{enquiryreport by givingreasonable opportunity} of hearing^{to the petitioner - chargedOfflcer' holding chargeNo 1}

¶76

WP No 2484 of20l9 10 BVR,J

¶77

as 'proved'and charge No.2 as'not proved'vrde proceedings dated 18.02.2013. After completion of oral enquiry, as per Rule 20 of Rules, 1991 and in compliance of the directions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.269 Home (SC.A) Department dated 23.05.2009, the connected oral enquiry records and finding of the enquiry authority were sent to the Government for disposal of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide oflice letter dated 25.0L.2074. But, on 3'd count i.e., on the allegation of accepting Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification, draft Article oF charge was not received from the Government. The same was received after approval on 23.01.2019. In addition to the above, the petitioner was involved in two criminal cases i.e., Crime No.66 of 2013 registered for the offence under Section 506 of IPC on the file of Kalapatha r P.S, Hyderabad, and Crime No.95 of 2013 reg iste red for the offence under Section 324 and 506 IPC on the file of Kamatipura P,S. In view of these two criminal cases, the petitio n e r was dea lt on punishment roll under Section 22 of Rules, 1997 vide proceedings in PR. No.97 of 2074 dated 13.03.2014. Later, further action was dropped as criminal proceedings in Crime No.95 of 2013 of P.S. Ka matipu ra and Crime No,66 of 2013 of P.S. Kalapathar, registered against the petitioner ended in compromise before Lok Adalat.

¶78

¶79

wP N0.2481 of20l9 1i BVR,J

¶80

¶81

Learned^{Special GovernmentPleader furthersubmitted} that the^{petitioner filedC.A.No21 of 2015 in O S'No 7872of 20t3} proceedings against^the requesting to^{initiatecontemPt} of the orders^{of the Tribunal,} respondents^{for non-implementation} dated 11.11.2013'^{In view of thelnterim orders of the Tribunal,} the petitioner was^promotedas Senior Assistant^{inthe existing} Rule 10^{(a) of} the A.P.^{State and} Subordinate vacancy under Services Rules,^{1996, vide officeD'O'No'1110/2015 dated} 13.02.2015,^{subjectto outcomeof O As/W Ps' TheGovernment} vlde G.O.Rt.No.70^{Homes(SC) Department' dated 02'O2'2015'} imposed the^{punishment of censureagainst the petitionerfor non-} Submission^{of Annual PropertyRetUrnsStatements. Subsequently,} the same was^{set aside vide G'O'Rt'No'491Home (SPL)} Department^{daled26.04.2017' Since the Article of chargewith} regard to^{the allegation of demandingand accepting Rs'1'000/- as} illegal^{gratification was pending, the Director General' ACB' TS'} Hyderabad^{has addressed a reminderletters dated09'02'2018'} 21,12.2018^{and 3t.t2.2Ot8.The petitionerflled W'P'No'43557 of} 2018 to fix^{his seniority as per the common ordersof the Tribunal} dated 09.08'2016^{and to promotehim as Office Superintendent'} The contempt^{case was filed by him for non-implementationof the} common^{orders of the Tribunal dated09'08'2016An affidavitin} Contempt^{Case No.3141 of2018 and counteraffidavit in}

¶82

¶83

t2 WP.No.2464 ol20l9 BVR,]

¶84

W.P.No.43557 of 2018 were filed by the Government on 05.02.2019. The Government vide memo dated 23.OL.2}lg, requested the Director General of police, Telangana State, Hyderabad, to conduct departmental action against the petitioner on the allegation of demanding and accepting Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification from Armed Reserve police Constable 2463 for doing official favour. The same was communicated to the Commissioner of Police through endorsement No.247/T2/2014 dated 24.01.2079. The delay, if any, caused was due to aciministrative reasons. On receipt of orders from the Government, immediately Article of charge was issued to the petitioner.

¶85

The point that arises for consideration in this writ

¶86

petition is:

¶87

"Whether there is inordinate delay in initiating departmental action against the petitioner?,,

¶88

Though a detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondents giving the background history of criminal cases and departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the delay caused in initiating departmental proceedings in connection with Anti Corruption Case is not satisfactorily explained. In the last unnumbered paragraph of page 11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents stated that:

¶89

¶90

wP No.2484 of2019 BVR,J

¶91

¶92

".,.... the delay^{was occurred due to the} ad min istrative^{reasons i.e', communication} between the O/o the^{Director General, ACB,} Telangana, Director General^ofPolice, Telangana. And^{Governmentof Telangana,} Before^{proceedingfurther it is mandatory to} seek prior approval^{of the Governmenton the} draft article of^{charge sent by the D.G., ACB to} the Government^{in the year 2010 on the main} charge i.e., allegation^ofdemandand acceptance of bribe.^{On receipt of orders from} the Government of^{Telanganaand Director} General of^{Police,Telangana,this office has} immediately issued^{article of charge to the} petitioner without any further^{loss of time."}

¶93

In Bani Singh's case (Supra 1), it^{was held as}

¶94

fo llows :

¶95

"The irregularities which^{were the subject matter of} the enquiry^{is said} to^{have taken place between the} yea":s 7975-77. It is not the^{case ofthe} department that they^{were not awareof the said} irregularities, if any, and^{came to know it only in} 1987. According to^{them even in April, !977there} was doubt about the^{involvementof the officerin} the said irregularities^{and the investigationswere} going on since then. If that is so,^{it is unreasonable} to think that they^{wouldhave taken more than12} years to initiate the disciplinary^{proceedingsas} stated by the Tribunal,^{There is no satisfactory} explanation for the^{inordinatedelay in issuing the}

¶96

WP No 2484 of 2019 BVR,J

¶97

¶98

charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage.""

¶99

In N. Radhakishan's case (Supra 2), the Hon'ble

¶100

Apex Couft held as under:

¶101

"It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedinqs are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be aliowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessaTily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider 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 employee. It is the basic principle of

¶102

wP.No.2484 of20l9 AVR.J

administrative^{justice that an officer entrusted with a} particular job has to^{performhis dutieshonestly,} efficiently and in accordance^{with the rules. Ifhe} deviates from this^path he^{is to suffer a penalty} prescribed. Normally, disciplinary^{proceedingsshould} be allowed to take their^{courseas per relevant rules but} then delay defeats^{justice. Delay causesprejudiceto} the charged officer^{unless it can be shown that he is to} blame for the delay^{or when there is proper explanation} for the delay in conducting^{the disciplinary proceedings'} Ultimately, the court^is to^{balance these twodiverse} consid erations.^"

¶107

In P,V. Mahadevan's^{case (Supra 3), the Hon'bleApex}

¶108

Cou rt held as follows:

¶109

"The^protracted disciplinary^{enquiry againsta} government employee should, therefore,^{be avoided not} only in the interests of^{the government employeebut in} public interest and also in the^{interestsof inspiring} confidence in the^{minds of the governmentemployees'} 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 accountof the disciplinary} proceedings. As a matter of fact,^{the mental agonyand} sufferings of the^{appellantdue to the protracted} disciplinary^{proceedingswould be much morethanthe} punishment. For the mistakes committed^{by the} department in the^{procedure forinitiatingthe} disciplinary^{proceedings,the appellant should not be} made to suffe r.^"

¶110

¶111

\tP No.2184 of20l9 BVR.J

¶112

¶113

In M,V. Bijlani's Case (Supra 4), it was held as follows:

¶114

"....,. The Tribunal as also the High Court failed to take into consideration that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after six years and they continued for a period of seven years and, thus, initiation of the disciplinary proceedings as also continuance thereof after such a long time evidently prejudiced the delinq uent officer. "

¶115

23, As observed in N. Radha Krishna,s case (Supra 2), mere delay cannot be a ground to hold that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. The paramount consideration, which needs to be seen is the prejudice that is caused to the employee on account of such delay. In a case of simple charge/s involving few witnesses, the delay of 2 or 3 years may be unwarranted. However, in case of serious and complex charges, for example charges involving corruption allegations or related to ACB case, the delay is understandable on account of procedural wrangles involved. The sanction / approval from the competent authority may be mandatory and there may be administrative delay. However, such delay has to be properly explained. By merely stating that approval of the competent authority is awaited, the respondents cannot wash off their han$i.

'./

WP.No.2484 of20l9 BVR,J

¶120

1 I

¶121

in the instant case, the Government dropped criminal proceedings ylde G.O.Ms. No.165 dated 25.06.2010, It was specifically pointed out therein that the version of the complainant, who is a Police Constable, in his complaint that the petitionerAccused officer tord him that his fixation would not be done until he pays bribe, is disproved, however, the Government decided to order departmental action against the petitioner. The respondents seriously contested the cases filed in O.A. Nos,7g72 of 2013, 3306 of 2014, C.C. Nos.21 and 22 of 2015, 68010 of 2O1B and W.p. No.43557 of 2018 and consistently referred to withdrawal of case of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner from the file of Tribunal vide G.O. Ms. No.165 dated 25.06.2010. At every stage of such cases, the respondents had opportunity to expedite initiation of disciplinary proceedings. But, it appears that the respondents were not diligent in doing so and the delay of nine (9) years is not properly explained. Going by the sequence of events, the circumstances clearly show that the departmental action was initiated under the impugned Memorandum / Article of charge to circumvent orders of the Tribunal in O.A,Nos,7B72 of 2Ol3 and 3306 of 2014, dated 09.08.2016, and C.C. No.68010 of 2018. The action of the respondents authority is not fair and is not for any bona fide reasons, but for extraneous consideration.

¶122

¶123

WP No 2484 ol20l9 ltvR,.l

¶124

¶125

¶126

In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned lVemorand um/Article of charge in PR.No.0212019 (No.L&O/88/558/2007) dated 31.01.2019. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the peti oner for promotion to the post of Superintendent without reference to the impugned Memorandum/Article of charge. No order as to costs,

¶127

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶128

in the writ petition shall stand closed,

SD/.M.MANJU

ASSISTANT REGIS R

,TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

The Commissioner of Police, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad.

¶135

The Additional commissioner of Police, Administration, o/o. the commissioner of Police, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶136

The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakadikapool, Hyderabad. 4. The Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.22.

¶137