Disciplinary proceedings against a government employee should be concluded expeditiously, and any unexplained delay may vitiate the proceedings.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“..... to issue any writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all retirement benefits including arrear of pension with appropriate interest and regular pension with all consequential benefits to the petitioner by declaring and setting aside the entire disciplinary proceedings including Charge Memo bearing Rc.No.5123/2012 A2 Dtd.30-05-2016 pending against the petitioner and the extent of the portion that Government have decided and hereby order to conduct departmental inquiry instead of prosecution on the petitioner in the Government memo No.53723/Vig.VI(2)/2012-2, Dtd.04-03-2014 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of articles 14,16,21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and pass such other relief or reliefs, as this Hon?ble Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

3. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he retired as Deputy Tahsildar on 30-09-2016 from the office of the District Supply Office, Srikakulam. While he was working as Tahsildar (Adhoc) at Sarubujjili Mandal, Srikakulam District, he was implicated in an ACB trap case along with the Revenue Inspector on the allegation that they demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000/-to do official favour to the de-facto complainant to process the file relating to conversion of his agricultural land into non-agricultural land. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension and an FIR was also registered against him. Subsequently, basing on the investigation report of the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad, the Government issued a Memo No. 53723 / Vig. VI(2)/2012-2, dated 04-03-2014 directing the 2nd respondent to initiate departmental inquiry against the petitioner and the criminal prosecution launched against him was dropped vide Rc.No.07/2015 on 07-05-2015, on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam.

i) In the course of departmental proceedings, the petitioner was served with a Charge Memo bearing Rc.No. 5123/2012 A2, dated 30-05-2016 for which he submitted an explanation dated 05-07-2016. Thereafter, the Forest Settlement Officer, Srikakulam was appointed as an Inquiry Officer vide Rc.No. 5123/2017/A2, dated 22-07-2017. After lapse of six months, the Inquiry Officer issued a notice dated 11-04-2018 directing the petitioner to attend a preliminary hearing in his office on 26-04-2018. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the Office where he was asked casual questions without conducting any departmental inquiry and he was asked to attend the regular inquiry whenever he receives further notice from him. Subsequently, the petitioner did not receive any notice either from the Inquiry Officer or from the Competent Authority i.e., the 2nd respondent either during his service or after his retirement. Further, even as on today, neither inquiry has not been conducted nor any orders have been passed on the disciplinary proceedings by the respondents. In the absence of any express by the competent authority, only provisional pension of 75% is being paid every month from the date of retirement of the petitioner, but Gratuity, Commutation of Pension and other arrears of 25% of pension are withheld by the respondents on the ground of pendency of the departmental/disciplinary proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Memo dated 04.03.2014 issued by the 1st respondent, it is specifically stated that no amount was recovered from the charged officer (petitioner herein) and the charged officer has collected the said amount as fine amount only as per oral orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and no official favour is pending with the charged officer/petitioner and finally it is observed that it is not a bribe amount.