Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 851
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
P. Naveen Rao, J.
K. Narayana – Appellant
Versus
Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad and Ors. – Respondents
WP Nos. 18611 of 2017 and 5512 of 2020
Decided On : 05-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D. Bala Kishan Rao
Point of law: delay in concluding the domestic enquiry proceedings is not fatal to the proceedings. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Telangana State Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 Rules, 1980 - Inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary proceedings pending, not granting promotion to petitioner as per his turn and seeks consequential direction to set aside disciplinary proceedings and to grant promotion on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits - Whether disciplinary proceedings are vitiated on the ground of delay in initiation and/or conclusion - Whether the decision to order de novo enquiry is within the competence of the disciplinary authority - Whether the denial of promotion to the petitioner on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings is legal - Whether petitioner was illegally denied from joining and working in the promotion post on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the time he was granted promotion and therefore not effecting promotion was valid –
Finding of the court : disciplinary proceedings cannot be said as vitiated only on the ground of delay in initiation. It all depends on facts of a given case. However, if the delay is long the burden is on employer to explain reasons for delay - So far as the question of delay in concluding the departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down. Each case must be determined on its own facts - With regard to delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings held delay in concluding the domestic enquiry proceedings is not fatal to the proceedings. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to continue with the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. At the same time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings should be permitted to continue - Adding to the misery of facing disciplinary action after 10 years, even though Enquiry Officer finds that file is available, merely because the Enquiry Officer has not recorded as to whether charge is proved or not, the disciplinary authority resorts to hold de novo enquiry by appointing another Enquiry Officer - Conclusion is that entire action smacks of arbitrary exercise of power and vindictive –
Result :Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
P. Naveen Rao, J.
1. In WP No. 18611 of 2017, petitioner challenges the charge-memo, dated 28.2.2017 and seeks consequential direction to grant promotion to the post of Tahsildar, as per the placement assigned in the panel for the year 2011-12. During the pendency of above writ petition, Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Not satisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer, by proceedings dated 6.11.2019, the District Collector appointed another Enquiry Officer to conduct de novo enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. In WP No. 5512 of 2020, petitioner challenges the said order dated 6.11.2019 and seeks further direction that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Tahsildar on par with his juniors by duly finalizing the departmental proceedings based on the enquiry report submitted on 31.12.2018. In both writ petitions, petitioner is the same. By this common order these writ petitions are disposed of.
2. To the extent relevant for the issues raised in these two writ petitions, the facts are as under:
Petitioner is working as Deputy Tahsildar and is now aspiring for promotion as Tahsildar. According to the petitioner, in seniority list of Deputy Tahsildars of Medak District, and in the panel of Deputy Tahsildars, eligible for promotion for the panel year 2011-12, his name was shown at Sl. No. 20. In the panel approved by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration (CCLA), vide his Reference No. Ser. II(1)/789/2016, dated 8.3.2016, petitioner name was included at Sl. No. 149. In March, 2016, promotions were made upto the Sl. No. 120 in the said approved panel. During the subsistence of panel approved on 18.3.2016, as a consequence to re-organization of the Revenue Districts, formation of new Mandals and Revenue Divisions and Districts, 2109 posts of Tahsildars were created. Petitioner claims that he ought to have been granted promotion in those vacancies. On 1.5.2017, orders were issued granting promotion to the petitioner as Tahsildar and posted as Superintendent in the Office of the District Collector, Medak, but this promotion was not given effect. Petitioner alleges that he was denied promotion on the ground that on 28.2.2017, charge-memo was drawn and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. On 20.12.2017, this Court granted interim orders directing consideration of the petitioner for promotion, if he is otherwise eligible, and if there is no prohibition in consideration of his case for promotion. On 6.11.2019 proceedings were issued appointing another Enquiry Officer to conduct de novo enquiry.
3. In these two writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioner is against inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, not finalizing the disciplinary proceedings based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, ordering de novo enquiry and on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending, not granting promotion to him as per his turn and seeks consequential direction to set aside disciplinary proceedings and to grant promotion on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits.
4. Heard Mr. D. Balakishan Rao, learned Counsel for petitioner, and Mr. N. Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for respondents.
5. On the validity of charge-memo, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that disciplinary proceedings are liable to be set aside on the sole ground that there was inordinate delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. On the alleged incident of the year 2005, charge-memo was drawn for the first time on 28.2.2017. Thus, on a stale issue, proceedings were initiated, after 12 years, and no justification is shown for such inordinate delay. Learned Counsel further submitted that allegation made against the petitioner in the charge-memo is on trivial issue i.e., misplacement of file relating to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Mr. K.E. John Wesiy. According to the learned Counsel, petitioner has submitted his explanation on 20.3.2017 denying the allegations
