Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural fairness as outlined in Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, and unjustified delays render penalties void.

JUDGMENT / ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of mandamus for the following relief :

"...duly setting aside the impugned order of punishment issued by the 3rd respondent vide RC No.8614/2006/M8, dated 19.01.2015 without even referring the explanation dated 11.01.2013 imposing the penalty of withholding of two 2 Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect besides Recovery of Rs.1,24,859/- and the connected order issued by the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal without assigning any reasons vide Proceeding No.8634/2015/A and DC2 dated 04.04.2016 and thereby denying promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer as being arbitrary, illegal vitiated by the delay contrary to the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered and promoted as Forest Range Officer with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :

(a) Initially, the petitioner was appointed as a Forest Section Officer on 24.08.2019 and promoted as Deputy Range Officer with effect from 10.07.2005 and working as such at Nallajerla Section, Eluru Division, West Godavari District, Rajahmundry Circle Unit under Zone-II.

(b) A charge memo dated 28.12.2006 was issued by the respondent No.3 under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 alleging that the petitioner committed excess expenditure of Rs.1,66,470/-.

(c) After lapse of three years and two months, the Common Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed. The petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the allegations leveled against him and a specific plea of delay was taken and he requested to furnish copies of the documents relied in the charge memo.

(d) The Inquiry Officer has submitted report on 20.08.2012 i.e., after lapse of more than five and half years from the date of issuance of the charge memo and two and half years from the date of appointment as Inquiry Officer. The findings of the Inquiry Officer were served on the petitioner on 27.12.2012 and the petitioner submitted the further defence statement on 11.01.2013 categorically stating that the amounts are recoverable from the members of Vana Samrakshana Samithi (V.S.S.).

(e) The respondent No.3 issued order dated 19.01.2015 imposing punishment of withholding of two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of Rs.1,24,859/-.

(f) Against the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to the respondent No.2 inter alia contending that the respondent No.3 has omitted to consider that details of apportionment of excess expenditure are not mentioned and that the disciplinary authority did not consider his explanation dated 11.01.2013 wherein, the petitioner submitted all the details of the case. He pleaded that the authority who issued the charge memo was appointed as Inquiry Officer, which is contrary to the rules.

(g) The