ORDER:

1. Heard Sri S.Gopal Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.509, MA & UD (Vig.II) Department dated 24.08.2017, G.O.Rt.No.267, MA&UD (Vig.III) Department dated 31.03.2021 appointing an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively for concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated in Charge Memo No.G.O.Rt.No.1312, MA & UD (E2) Department dated 18.11.2006 which is not communicated to the petitioner and the delinquency pertains to the year 1997-98 and continuance of the prolonged disciplinary proceedings without even commencing the same so far and for not-releasing the pensionary benefits including gratuity, etc. though the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation.

3. The Learned Counsel submits that the respondents said to have issued Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.1312, MA and UD (E2) Department dated 18.11.2006 which was not even communicated to the petitioner and the allegations are that the petitioner and three others allowed a builder to construct the unauthorized construction in a cellar floor into shops and regularizing the same in violation of Rules in the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the said allegation pertains to the year 1997-98.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that out of the four names mentioned in the impugned proceedings one Sri Azmathulla expired long back, Sri P.A.S.Lakshamna Rao, who was allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh, was retired long back and Sri Goverdhan Reddy also retired long back and the Enquiry Officer was appointed after lapse of 20 years of the alleged incident and after four years of appointment of enquiry officer, the respondents have issued G.O.Rt.No.267, MA & UD (Vig.III) dated 31.03.2021 and appointed the Presenting Officer for concluding the enquiry.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that continuing the disciplinary proceedings even after lapse of 24 years from the date of alleged delinquency is contrary to well established law and the protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should be avoided not only in the interest of Government employee but in the public interest and also in the interest of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees and the same is also contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.679, GAD (Ser.C) dated 01.11.2008, which prescribes the time limit as 3 months in the simple cases and 5 to 6 months in complicated cases.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the instant case more than two decades have been elapsed but nothing is proceeded further subjecting the petitioner to mental agony by denying the legitimate right to have pensionery benefits, gratuity, etc., though he retired from service on 30.06.2017 and requested to allow the writ petition.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention riled on the judgment:

P.V.Mahadevan Vs. M.D.Tamil Nadnu, Housing Board, 2005 (6) SCC 636.

8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III basing on the counter submits that the petitioner and others without following the rules allowed the builder to covert the cellar into shops and regularized the same in violation of Rules in Dilsukhnagar area of erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Due to administrative lapses, the respondents could not appoint the Enquiry Officer in time and there is no fault on the part of the respondents as the Enquiry Officer did not submit his report even after lapse of three years and in view of the same there is no lapse on the part of the respondents and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

9. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was retired from Service on 30.06.2017 as Dire