Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 1515
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
G. Narendar and Harinath. N, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Appellant
Versus
E. Venkat Reddy – Respondent
WA No.229 of 2024
Decided On : 23-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Government Pleader for Services-I (AP)
For the Respondent: Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and be conducted within a reasonable time to prevent gross negligence and injustice to employees.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules - Disciplinary proceedings - Gross negligence in conducting proceedings - The learned Single Judge set aside the order due to significant delay and lack of due process in disciplinary action against the respondent after superannuation. (Paras 1, 7, 13)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Duty of the authorities to ensure timely and just disciplinary proceedings against employees. (Paras 16)
Facts of the case:
The respondent, an Assistant Director, faced charges years after superannuation for alleged negligence and misappropriation of funds; the disciplinary action commenced after an extraordinary delay.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge ruled that there was gross negligence by the disciplinary authorities in handling the case, leading to injustice for the respondent.
Issues: Whether the delay and lack of consideration of the respondent's explanation constituted a denial of fair procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary authorities must conduct proceedings promptly and fairly, adhering to principles of natural justice; failure to do so invalidates the disciplinary action taken.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. disciplinary proceedings against employee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. negligence in disciplinary proceedings (Para 7) |
| 3. delay and differing punishments raised as arguments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's observations on negligence and duty. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. appeal dismissed; judgment concluded. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
HARINATH.N. J :
The writ appeal is preferred by the State challenging the order of disposal of the writ petition passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has held that there was gross negligence on part of the respondents/appellants in conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
2. The learned Single Judge has set aside the impugned order dated 01.08.2022 which was passed after lapse of ten years from the date of initiation of the proceedings and after lapse of six years from the date of submission of explanation by the petitioner.
3. The respondent was working as Assistant Director (Handlooms and Textiles) at the time of attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2011. Articles of Charge dated 16.02.2012 were issued to the respondent calling for explanation on the charges framed for the period 1996-2004 and 2008-2009.
4. It was alleged that the respondent had failed to find out the genuineness of the records of five societies. The said societies had claimed inflated marketing incentives and caused misappropriation of funds sanctioned to those societies to a tune of Rs.49,71,900/-. It was further alleged that the respondent had failed to detect bogus membership and recommended for sanction of excess cash credit/incentives of Rs.6,09,500/-.
5. The respondent submitted his explanation on 09.03.2012. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 11.02.2013 holding that part of the charges were proved against the respondent.
6. Without considering the explanation submitted by the respondent, show-cause notice dated 26.03.2016 was issued calling upon to explain as to why penalty of cut in pension by 15% on permanent basis should not be imposed against the respondent.
7. The respondent submitted his explanation on 16.04.2016. The impugned order was passed on 11.08.2022 imposing the punishment of cut in pension by 15%. The respondent aggrieved by the punishment imposed on him filed writ petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge has considered the case of the respondent on merits and had held that the officers of the appellant had exhibited gross negligence in concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein.
8. The learned Government Pleader submits that, the learned Single Judge erred in not considering the fact that there was an abnormal delay on part of the respondent in submitting his explanation and that the charges which were issued against the respondent were well within the prescribed period of limitation as envisaged under A.P. Revised Pension Rules.
9. The learned Government Pleader also submits that, there is no bar in law for initiation of appropriate action against an erring employee more so when there is a huge financial loss to the public exchequer.
10. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the inaction on the part of the respondent in taking appropriate action at the appropriate time against the five societies which had submitted bogus claims. Such inaction on part of the respondent is to be treated as dereliction of duty with ulterior motives.
11. It is submitted that the appellants had exhibited different yardsticks in case of similarly situated employees, namely, S. Ahmed Mohiddin, K. Ramappa, S. Basava Raju, S. Appaji and B. Chandrasekhara Raju. The Commissioner of Handlooms and Textiles had imposed the punishment of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The employees had appealed to Government and the Government had modified the punishment as censure.
12. The learned Counsel also submits that the case of the respondent is similarly situated as that of t
