Point of Law:Service Law- charge memo itself is liable to be quashed in view of inordinate delay of 10 years in completion of departmental enquiries in the absence of any explanation by the respondent employer

JUDGMENT :

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Order, dated 03.03.2020, passed in W.P. No.1514 of 2020, the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, and the Engineer-in-Chief, Tribal Welfare Office, preferred the present writ appeal.

2. The Respondent/Writ Petitioner filed the above Writ Petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not concluding the proceedings issued vide charge memos and show-cause notices of the 1st respondent in Memo No. B3/4372/2008 dated 28.11.2008, memo No.B3/6807/2008, dated 09.02.2009, notices vide memo No.14343/TW.Ser.II-2/2006, dated 15.04.2009, memo No.4373/TW.ser.II-2/2007-3 dated 12.05.2009, and memo No. 13111/TW.ser.II-2/2013-3 dated 26.05.2014, G.O.Rt. No.286 TW.Ser.A2 Dept. dated 03.07.2015, G.O.Rt. No.510.TW (Ser.A1) Dept, dated 06.12.2017, G.O.Rt. No.447.TW (Ser.A1) Dept, dated 18.10.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and also contrary to the G.O.Ms. No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms. No. 100 dated 27.06.2018, and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to drop further action on all charges against the Petitioner and pay retiremental benefits including gratuity of Rs.12.00 lakhs and other consequential benefits.

3. The factual matrix of the case are as under:

(i) The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 21.01.1983 by the Project Officer, ITDA Parvatipuram, Vizianagaram District and later promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 1999. Subsequently, on 01.04.2006 he was promoted as Executive Engineer as per seniority-cum-meritorious service and worked in Tribal Welfare Division, Srisailam, up to 15.08.2007.

(ii) After working as In-charge Superintending Engineer, Tribal Welfare Department, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation vide G.O.Rt. No. 148 Social Welfare (TW.Ser.A1) Department, dated 30.04.2018. It is stated that, though he retired from service, the 1st Respondent released only provisional pension of 75% vide G.O.Rt. No. 276, Social Welfare (TW.Ser) Department, dated 23.08.2018, instead of full pensionary benefits on the ground of charges and show cause notices pending against him.

(iii) It is stated that, though replies to the two charges and two show-cause notices were given 10 years prior, and that for the four charges replies were given one year and five months ago to the respondent authorities, but no action has been initiated till date. It is stated that, all the charges / show cause notices relate to minor procedural lapses and no financial implications are involved. The G.O.Ms. No. 679, dated 01.11.2008, was issued to complete enquiries in respect of disciplinary cases within a period of three / six months by taking into consideration the nature of charge(s) i.e., minor/ major, but the same are not completed.

(iv) Relying on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan (1998) 4 SCC 154 and P.V. Mahadevan v. MD. T.N. Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636, the counsel for the Writ Petitioner/Respondent submits that, the charge memo itself is liable to be quashed in view of inordinate delay of 10 years in completion of departmental enquiries in the absence of any explanation by the respondent employer. As the above judgments squarely covers the case of the Writ Petitioner and also the guidelines issued under various G.O’s fixing time limit for expeditious completion of enquiries, filed the writ petition seeking the aforesaid prayer.

(v) Vide Order, dated 03.03.2020, the learned Single Judge of this court disposed of the Writ Petition holding as under:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported between P.V.Mahadevan Vs. Md.T.N.Housing Board, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the charge memo itself should be quashed on the