Point of law: The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee issued, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of Government employee, but in the public interest and also in the interest of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees

ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief :

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

(a) declaring the impugned action of the 3rd respondent in issuing impugned proceedings C.No.11/PR/05, dated 22.01.2014, dissenting with Enquiry report dated 07.01.2014 thereby ordering De novo enquiry into the same charges through the charges were held not proved in the Enquiry Report dated 07.01.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, apart from violative of principles of natural justice and also law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 2398 in the case of SBI v. Arvind K.Shukla; AIR 1998 SC 2713 in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Bihari Misra and AIR 1999 SC 3734 in the case of Yoginath D Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(b) declaring the continuation of disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of Charge Memo dated 24.07.2008 for more than 12 years as being contrary to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Chamanlal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 and in the case of State of A.P. vs. V.N.Radha Krishna reported in AIR 1998 SC 1833, by further declaring the impugned action of the respondents denying promotion of the petitioner to the post of Head Constable (Civil) only on ground of delayed Departmental proceedings, while promoting several of his juniors as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various Judgments and consequently direct for promoting the petitioner to the post of Head Constable (Civil) with notional date w.e.f. the date of promotion of his juniors, with all attendant benefits and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Police Constable in A.P. Subordinate Service, way back on 31.07.1983 and he rendered unblemished service and for his sincere efforts in detection of crime, the petitioner was given cash rewards 70 in number, and while working at various Police Stations i.e. Krishnalanka P.S, IV Town (Crime) Vijayawada City, CCS, II Town P.S. (Crime), Kankipadu P.S. and lastly Gannavaram P.S. while the petitioner was working at Gannavaram P.S., Vijayawada City Commissionerate, allegations were made against petitioner, by a known Rowdy Sheeter who was even convicted in a criminal case in which petitioner has arrested him, alleging that the petitioner has collected boodle under threat and on the basis of such oral allegations and upon oral instructions said to have been issued by respondent No.3, an enquiry behind back of the petitioner said to have been conducted by an officer in the rank of Circle Inspector and submitted report dated 14.04.2005, on the basis of which, straightaway an order was passed removing the petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 26.04.2005 issued by respondent No.3.

3. Aggrieved by the order of termination of petitioner from service vide proceedings dated 26.04.2005, the petitioner filed O.A.No.5538 of 2005 and upon hearing, the said O.A. was allowed vide order dated 22.02.2007 setting aside the order of removal. Thereupon, the respondents have preferred W.P.No.13798 of2007 before this Court. However, while the above writ petition was pending, the petitioner made representation to respondent No.2, who in-turn considered the same and passed an order dated 26.10.2007, setting aside the removal order and directed reinstatement of petitioner while holding that the removal of the petitioner was not proper. Therefore, directed for conducting detailed enquiry, consequent upon that respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 21.06.2008, reinstating the petitioner, but without back wages and upon reinstatement, the petitioner was kept u