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 justice.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for declaring the action of the respondents in failing to obtain the concurrence from APPSC which is mandatory and thereby not concluding the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 31.10.2009, vide G.O.Rt.No.1697 & CAD (Ser.VII) (V&E- 2) Department, though 14 years have lapsed as illegal, arbitrary and consequently for setting aside/quash the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 31.10.2009, on the ground of abnormal unexplained delay and release all the pension benefits.

2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present writ petition is as follows :

3. It is the case that, several irregularities and serious lapses were noticed pertaining to Vamsadhara Project in Srikakulam District, which had come to the notice of Vigilance & Enquiry Department. The said Vigilance & Enquiry Department conducted preliminary enquiries and has recorded its conclusions of huge corruption in procurement of Screw Gearing Shutters. The officers who were found responsible in finalizing the price and procurement, in the said enquiry were identified as 34 officers, they were responsible for submitting ante dated agreements and managing higher rates with a view to defraud the Government. Based on the said report, 30 in service officers were found prima facie involved in grave irregularities and charges were recommended to be proceeded against them. The petitioner is one among the 34 officers, who is allegedly involved in the misappropriation /corruption.

4. As a consequence, the Government in due consideration of the said report, suspended the said officers including the petitioner, pending enquiry. Aggrieved by the suspension order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.9126 of 2009, before the Andhra Pradesh Appellate Tribunal wherein the Tribunal declined to interfere with the suspension order. The petitioner preferred W.P.No.17751 of 2009, against the order of the Tribunal and on 26.08.2009, this Court directed the State to complete the enquiry within a period of three months. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Court dated 26.08.2009, the State framed six charges against the petitioner and communicated to him vide GO.Rt.No.1697, dated 31.10.2009. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.12.2009, denying all the charges and allegations and requested to drop the charges framed against him.

5. The petitioner submits that the Government, appointed a retired Chief Engineer on 05.04.2010 to conduct enquiry, wherein the retired Chief Engineer submitted his report and based on the enquiry report of the retired Chief Engineer, the disciplinary authority reinstated 13 numbers of AE/AEEs and DEEs vide GO.Rt.Nos.548 to 560 I&CAD SER VII (V&E-II) Dept, dated 20.05.2010. Further the Government initially appointed Commissioner of Inquiries on 10.01.2011, with a delay of one year one month, actually by which time the entire disciplinary enquiry should have been completed and final orders ought to have been passed.

6. It is the case that the petitioner is placed under suspension for three years four months which is against the service law Jurisprudence apart from purport of G.O.Ms.NO.679 and ratio laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court incatina of judgments. Thereafter, it is submitted that, the Commissioner of Inquiries, conducted enquiry physically with all the Charged Officers, along with Presiding Officer, and the Witness Officer between the period from 16.05.2011 to 04.06.2011 i.e., within 20 days and addressed a U.O. Note No.f27/COI-SB/2011-3, dated 07.07.2011, to the Principal Secretary to Government, I&CAD Dept, in which it is stated that the process of enquiry is completed but in fact, it is totally contrary to the directions of this Court dated 26.08.2009, directions to complete the disciplinary case within 3 months.

7. The petitioner contends that, further the Government appointed Sri K. Sahadevareddy as Commission