SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(AP) 252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Ch. China Babu, S/o. Late Narayana and Ors – Respondent
W.A. No. 45 of 2021
Decided On : 20-03-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Bheema Rao G.P., for Services.
For the Respondent: Mr. Poodattu Amarender

Point of Law:Disciplinary proceedings initiated against the delinquent employee is required to be concluded expeditiously and he should not be made to undergo mental agony and monetary loss

Headnote:

Constitution of India- Articles 14 and 16- Writ Petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings as per the time schedule fixed by the Government, and the inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings for the issues relating to 1998–1999 and onwards as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India

Finding of the Court:

Admittedly, the Petitioner herein retired from service on 30.06.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. His pensionary benefits are not being settled on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings- there are eight proceedings pending and it would be difficult to complete the proceedings within the time prescribed. But, as seen from the record, these proceedings were initiated in the year 2000 and the last one is in the year 2011. There is no justification for the Appellant’s counsel to contend that the delay in completing the proceedings was due to number of cases. As stated earlier, these eight proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner over a period of time and the last one was in the year 2011. Hence, we hold that the Appellants have miserably failed to explain the delay in completing the proceedings and as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it, more so when it is not the case of the Appellants that the Writ Petitioner was responsible for the delay in conducting the proceedings.

Result: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Order, dated 30.01.2020, passed in W.P. No.1865 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 disciplinary proceedings as per the time schedule fixed by the Government, and the inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings for the issues relating to 1998–1999 and onwards as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

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

    (i) The Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department in the year 1982 and later promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 1990. He continued as such till 31.10.1995. Subsequently, he was absorbed in Tribal Welfare Engineering Department vide Orders in G.O. Rt. No. 969 (SW) dated 09.10.1995. Later, he was promoted as Executive Engineer (Incharge) in the Office of Engineering-in-Chief and later promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer (Incharge) in the year 2013. After bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, he was appointed as Deputy Chief Engineer in the Office of ENC and retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016.

(ii) It is stated that, though he retired from service on 30.06.2016, his pensionary benefits were not settled on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated while he was in employment. He made a representation on 10.02.2018 to the Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department and also to the Engineer-in-Chief, Tribal Welfare Department, requesting them to furnish list of cases in which the disciplinary proceedings are initiated and pending against him and also the stages of those cases. Vide letter, dated 12.03.2018, the Public Information Officer, Tribal Welfare Department, furnished list of cases and stage of proceedings pending against him.

(iii) Having regard to the fact that these proceedings are pending since 2000 onwards, and the last one being the one, in which charge memo was issued in the year 2011, he submits that continuation of disciplinary proceedings against him would be contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the circumstances, he prays for quashing of all the disciplinary proceedings.

(iv) Vide Order, dated 30.01.2020, the learned Single Judge of this court disposed of the Writ Petition holding as under:

“4. Hence, in the light of the above, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to conclude the enquiry pending against the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the enquiry proceedings shall stand quashed. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry and the delay, due to any fault on his part, shall be considered for extension of the time.”

4. Challenging the said Order, the present appeal came to be filed by the State.

5. Sri. Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services, would contend that as there are eight disciplinary proceedings pending against the Writ Petitioner, fixing a time limit of four months to complete the same would be improper and incorrect. He further pleads that disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Writ Petitioner could not be completed due to dislocation of files at the time of bifurcation of the State. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the Writ Petitioner, he would submit that the two judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel shall not apply to the facts of the case.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top