Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
D. Nehemia Babu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 24743 of 2021
Decided On : 01-07-2022
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - DELAY - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - A.P. CIVIL SERVICES (DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS TRIBUNAL) ACT, 1960 - G.O. MS. NO. 679 - DELAY IN CONCLUDING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - COURT'S POWER TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS - PRINCIPLES OF COMITY - RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Excise Department, faced three disciplinary proceedings for alleged incidents occurring between 2009 and 2012. Despite the issuance of charge memos in 2017, the proceedings remained pending before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. The petitioner retired in 2018, but his pension and other retirement benefits were withheld due to the pending proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was an inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, spanning over nine years. The court noted that the initial delay in referring the matter to the Tribunal, the delay in the Tribunal's proceedings, and the failure of the Government to act in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 679 and heed the warnings issued by the court in previous cases constituted a gross inaction on the part of the State.
Issues: 1. Whether the court has the power to quash disciplinary proceedings due to excessive delay. 2. Whether the principles of comity require the court to follow earlier orders passed by learned single Judges quashing proceedings on the ground of delay. 3. Whether the right to a speedy trial and conclusion of proceedings is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that it has the power to quash disciplinary proceedings due to excessive delay, especially when the delay is attributable to the inaction of the State. 2. The court found that the principles of comity urged it to follow the earlier orders passed by learned single Judges quashing proceedings on the ground of delay. 3. The court recognized that the right to a speedy trial and conclusion of proceedings is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the protracted disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner violated this right.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the disciplinary proceedings, and directed the respondents to release the petitioner's full pension, gratuity, and encashment of earned leave with interest within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT
Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - 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 declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending (3) disciplinary Proceedings pending vide (1) Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 120/2013, dated 21.06.2017 (2) Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 146/2013, dated 15.09.2017 and (3) Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 173/2013, dated 27.11.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent which related to the years 2011-12 in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 679, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, due to the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings on the part of the respondents, the petitioner got prejudiced in depriving his legitimate pension and other Retirement benefits as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of existing specific instructions of the Government and the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, accordingly set aside the same, on the same analogy of well considered orders passed W.P. Nos. 11776 and 11779 of 2021 dated 19.07.2021, consequently direct the respondents to release full Pension, Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave together with 12% p.a interest immediately to the petitioner and pass such other orders'.
2. Heard Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherla Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Excise Department on 11.05.1995, posted at Singaraya Konda, Prakasam District. Subsequently he got promoted as Prohibition & Excise Inspector in the year 2003 and he was allowed to retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2018. His retirement is without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings dated 21.06.2017, 15.09.2017 and 27.11.2017, which are related to one incident and which is prior to his retirement. The three charges are identical and related to one place, for the same period of service, rendered by the petitioner at Narasaraopet, Guntur District, even from the date of service of the above Charge Memos, there is no progress in the enquiry and still the same are pending. The delay caused by the respondents in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, even after his retirement and denial of pensionary rights by the respondents as illegal and arbitrary. Hence this writ petition came to be filed.
4. No counter is filed by the respondents.
5. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader for Services-I opposes granting of any relief. He submits that as the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings is not functioning, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the alleged delay and claim exoneration/a writ of Mandamus dismissing the charges. He points out that even if there is delay, at best, this Court can direct the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to conclude the enquiry, but it cannot quash the charges.
6. After hearing the counsels for some time and noticing the law on this subject, this Court posted the matter for further hearing to enable the counsels to argue whether (a) this Court can only give a direction to the Enquiry Officer/Tribunal to complete the proceedings within a time frame or (b) it can also include a default clause in the order by which the proceedings would be automatically closed in case they are completed as directed. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions, which given below:
(1) State of Punjab and others v. Chamanlal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570
(2) P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamilnadu Housing Board (2005) 6 SCC 636
(3) M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India and others (2006) 5 SCC 88
(4) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others v. Prabash Chandra Mirdha (2012) 11 SCC 565
(5) Secretary, Forest Department v. Abdur Rasul Chowdury (2009) 7 SCC 305
(6) The Government of A.P. v. A. Rajeswar Reddy (2010) 3 ALD 501 (DB)
7. It is his contention
Excessive delay in disciplinary proceedings, attributable to the inaction of the State, can lead to the quashing of the proceedings, especially when the delay violates the petitioner's right to a spe....
Disciplinary proceedings against a government employee should be concluded expeditiously, and any unexplained delay may vitiate the proceedings.
Delay in conducting disciplinary proceedings can lead to quashing of the proceedings, even if the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings is not functioning, if the delay is inordinate and causes menta....
Unexplained delay and lethargy in the disposal of disciplinary proceedings can lead to the quashing of the proceedings, especially when the employee has suffered mental agony and suffering due to the....
Delay alone is not a sufficient ground to quash disciplinary proceedings. Prejudice must be demonstrated, and the gravity of the charges and all relevant factors involved in the case must be consider....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the abnormal delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings without valid reasons and explanation is liable to be quashed in the interest of ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
