Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Order vs Jitendra on 24 November, 2021
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No. 23494 of 2021
ORDER:
Heard Mr. S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and Mr. P.C. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.
2. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner since 2015 in respect of the allegations relating to the year 2011-2012 without finalising the same and depriving the right of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher cadre, as void, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts.
3. At present, the petitioner is working as Junior Assistant in the 4th respondent-Municipality. Earlier, he worked as Bill Collector in the said Municipality from 2008 to 2014. While so, he was served with a Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.464 dated 29.06.2015 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner committed irregularities in respect of property tax by entering lesser measurements in online than the actual measurements for the assessment year 2011-2012. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.08.2015 denying the charges levelled against him. Instead of considering the explanation of the petitioner, the 1st respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer for conducting enquiry in the year 2016. The Enquiry Officer 2 NJS,J W.P.No.23494_2021 submitted his report in the year 2017, but the 1st respondent has not passed final orders so far. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner relates back to the year 2011-2012 and pursuant to the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner, suitable explanation/reply was submitted as long back as on 27.08.2015 and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry, submitted a report in the year 2017. He submits that though more than four years have elapsed, the respondents have not passed any final orders till date, as a result of the same, the petitioner is deprived of his right for promotion to the next higher cadre.
i) The learned counsel submits that the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.
He submits that the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings is totally attributable to the respondents. The learned counsel also submits that in the light of the expression of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Limited Vs. Jitendra Pd. Sing, reported in 2001 (10) SCC 530, and M. V. Bijalani Vs. Union of India, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88, as also the judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in D. Srinivas Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2013 (4) ALT 1, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition are liable to be set aside, on the ground of inordinate delay in 3 NJS,J W.P.No.23494_2021 concluding the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel also places reliance on a latest judgment rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3421 of 2021 dated 19.03.2021.
5. Learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel have not disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. However, the Government Pleader for Services-IV placed on record a copy of Memo No.10951/VIG.III/2014 dated 02.11.2021 wherein it was mentioned that the Government provisionally decided to impose penalties/dropping of further action against the charged Officers/petitioners referred to therein.
6. A reading of the said Memo dated 02.11.2021 goes to show that before imposing major penalty against the delinquent officers, the Government vide letter dated 07.05.2018 requested the APPSC to give their concurrence and in reply to the same, the APPSC vide letter dated 10.08.2018 requested the Government to furnish certain information along with check-list to the Commission for their concurrence to impose major penalty on the delinquent officers. Further, on the request of the Secretary, APPSC, the Government vide Memo dated 19.11.2018 requested the CDMA, Guntur, to furnish check-list and required information for imposing major penalty against the delinquent officers. In view of the said Memo dated 02.11.2021, the learned Government Pleader submits that the respondents, after receipt of the required information, would conclude the final 4 NJS,J W.P.No.23494_2021 disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months. Though the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the judgments relied on by him merit consideration, in view of the Memo referred to above, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to conclude the final disciplinary proceedings, within a period of two months from today. In the event, the same are not concluded within the stipulated time, the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner shall stand quashed.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.
______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 24th November, 2021 cbs 5 NJS,J W.P.No.23494_2021 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.23494 of 2021 24th November, 2021 cbs