Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Govt. Of A.P., Energy, Forests, Science ... vs C. Purushotham And Anr. on 19 September, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002(1)ALT403
ORDER S.R. Nayak, J.
1. This writ petition is by the State Government and its authorities directed against the order made by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 6-11-1998 in O.A.No. 2034 of 1997. The background facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are stated briefly as under.
2. In the year 1985 while the 1st respondent was serving as Draughtsman Grade-II in the office of the District Forest Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District, certain allegations were made against him and another official regarding certain alleged irregularities committed by them in the matter of purchase of polythene bags by the Department. On the basis of those allegations, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the 2nd petitioner herein appointed the Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry, the 3rd petitioner herein as the Enquiry Officer to conduct a regular departmental enquiry into the said allegations. The 3rd petitioner framed charges against the 1st respondent herein on 9-9-1985 and the 1st respondent submitted his explanation on 10-2-1986 denying all the allegations. The Enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry submitted his report in the month of May 1986 to the 2nd petitioner herein. The 2nd petitioner did not pass any orders on receipt of the findings from the Enquiry Officer.
3. When the things stood thus, the matter. was entrusted to the A.C.B. and the A.C.B. framed certain charges and issued a Charge Memo to the 1st respondent on 8-5-1991. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation to the said Charge Memo on 17-6-1991. Subsequently the 1st respondent retired from service on 30-6-1992 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent being aggrieved by the framing of charges by the A.C.B. filed O.A.No. 5617 of 1992 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). On 18-9-1992, the Tribunal passed an interim order directing the petitioner authorities to examine the representation of the 1st respondent and pass appropriate orders relating to. pensionary benefits. No action was taken by the petitioner authorities in pursuance of the said directions of the Tribunal. On 18-12-1992, O.A.No. 5617 of 1992 was finally disposed of by the Tribunal directing the petitioner authorities to pass final orders within two months from the date of receipt of the order and settle the pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent immediately, in any event within three months. Despite this clear direction of the Tribunal, no final orders were passed within the stipulated time by the petitioner authorities. Under those circumstances, the 1st respondent filed Contempt Application No. 368 of 1993 complaining abut the inaction of the petitioner authorities. In that Contempt Application, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner authorities stating that all the connected files were already transferred to the G.A.D. and therefore, action could not be taken, as directed earlier by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 5617 of 1992 dated 18-12-1992. The 1st respondent subsequently filed another O.A.No. 1949 of 1995 seeking a direction to the petitioner authorities to pass final orders. In that O.A. the Tribunal by its order dated 2-8-1996 directed the petitioner authorities to pass appropriate orders within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of the order. After several rounds of avoidable applications and orders made by the Tribunal, only on 28-10-1996, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st petitioner herein passed an order dropping all the charges levelled against the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, the provisional pension was sanctioned and paid to the 1st respondent in the year 1993; gratuity and commutation of pension were paid on 3-3-1997; leave encashment was paid on 27-2-1997 and pension arrears were also paid on 15-3-1997. In those circumstances, the 1st respondent filed O.A.No. 2034 of 1997 before the Tribunal seeking direction to the petitioner authorities to pay interest at the actual market rate on the amount of retirement benefits from the date of his retirement i.e., 30-6-1992 till the actual payment was made to the 1st respondent. That application was clubbed with another O.A.No. 385 of 1998 filed by one D. Polaiah, a retired Deputy Director of Agriculture, wherein he also sought for grant of interest. The Tribunal clubbed both the O.As. heard together and disposed of them by a common order dated 6-11-1998.
4. Contesting the claim of the 1st respondent herein, a counter-affidavit was filed by the petitioners herein sworn to by the District Forest Officer, Kakinada, the 4th petitioner herein. The main contention in the said counter-affidavit was that due to administrative reasons, the departmental enquiry could not be completed and as the disciplinary enquiry was pending till 28-10-1996, the pensionary benefits payable to the 1st respondent were not settled and paid and that there was no deliberate lapse on the part of the petitioner authorities in payment of pensionary benefits, and in those circumstances, the 1st respondent is not entitled to interest as claimed in the original application.
5. The Tribunal taking notice of the fact that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests submitted his report as far as back as in May, 1986 and for the reasons best known to them, the petitioner authorities instead of passing appropriate orders on the basis of the enquiry report, referred the matter to the A.C.B. and the A.C.B. after a long lapse of 5 years issued the Charge Memo to the 1st respondent on 8-5-1991. The Tribunal also took notice of the fact and even there afterwards, despite the interim and final directions issued by the Tribunal in. O.A.No. 5617 of 1992 and Contempt Applications No. 368 of 1993 and O.A. No. 1949 of 1995, the Department did not take any appropriate action in time to pass final orders. The Government passed the order only on 28-10-1996 dropping all the charges levelled against the 1st respondent. The resultant position is that the 1st respondent is completely exonerated from the charges levelled against him. The 1st respondent retired from service as far back as on 30-6-1992. There is absolutely no material placed by the petitioner authorities whatsoever, much less a satisfactory material to show that the enquiry before the A.C.B was delayed on account of the non-cooperation of the delinquent, 1st respondent. In those circumstances, no exception can be taken to the order made by the Tribunal granting a moderate interest at the rate of 12%. The order of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case is not only legal, but also fully justified and equitable. The State Government cannot be permitted to make any unlawful gain for its own lapse in completing the enquiry and in not passing appropriate orders, despite repeated directions issued by the Tribunal to the peril of the 1st respondent.
6. There is also one more weighty reason to dismiss the writ petition. As already pointed out, the Tribunal by its common order disposed of in O.A.No. 2034 of 1997 filed by the 1st respondent herein and also O.A.No,.385 of 1998 filed by one D. Polaiah, a retired Deputy Director of Agriculture, who also sought a direction to the petitioner authorities to pay interest in a similar fact situation and both the Original applications were ordered by the Tribunal. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II at the time of the hearing would tell us that the State Government has not preferred any writ petition against the order of the Tribunal made in favour of the said D. Polaiah. Therefore, it is a clear case of practising invidious discretion (sic. discrimination) in two similarly circumstanced retired officials.
7. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this writ petition with costs quantified at Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) payable to the 1st respondent within two weeks from to-day.