IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings, without proper justification, can amount to an abuse of process and lead to grave injustice, harassment, and mental agony to the affected party.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is filed in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon (General) while considering the number of juniors from time to time even though the petitioner is fully eligible, qualified and within the zone of consideration on the untenable ground that disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge memo RC No.035742/VC.III.B/ 08-15, dtd. 6/12/2008, is liable to be set aside on the ground of inordinate delay and such action is contrary to the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.GA (Ser-C) Department, dtd. 1/11/2008.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

2.1. Petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon through direct recruitment w.e.f. 3/9/1994 and had passed all the necessary departmental tests and his services were regularized and his promotion was declared satisfactorily in the above said cadre. Petitioner was promoted as Deputy Civil Surgeon in December 2010 and during his long service, his name was considered as Incharge District Medical and Health Offcer on 11/10/2016. Petitioner joined in the said post and discharging his duties sincerely, without any complaints, except the present alleged allegations mentioned in the charge memo dtd. 6/12/2008 for the issue related to 2002-2007.

2.2. While petitioner was working as Civil Assistant Surgeon at PHC, Neelikuduru, he was transferred to MGM Hospital, Warangal on 17/1/2006 and to PHC, Kambalapally of Warangal District on 12/9/2006 and to PHC, Parvathagiri vide proceedings dtd. 1/8/2009. While he was working at PHC, Parvathagiri, he was considered for promotion as Deputy Civil Surgeon vide proceedings dtd. 2/12/2010. While petitioner was working as Medical Officer at Kambalapally, 1st respondent initiated departmental proceedings under Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 (for short, 'the Rules, 1991 ) vide proceedings dtd. 6/12/2008 for the issue relating to 2002-2007 and the article of charge was framed that Dr. Sriram, Medical Officer, PHC Kambalapally, has not remitted the unspent amount of Rs.25, 420.00 to the DM&HO, Warangal for the years 2002 to 2007 towards F.P. operations and that he failed to maintain absolute integrity, discipline and devotion to duty and exhibited behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant and violated Rule 3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and called explanation from the petitioner.

2.3. Petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 5/5/2009 and stated that the alleged unspent balance amount of Rs.25, 420.00 mentioned in the charge memo was not at all belongs to his working period at PHC, Kambalapally since he has taken over the charge as Medical Officer at Kambalapally on 12/9/2006 and that as on the date, there was no unspent cash balance of FP (Family Planning) budget and ultimately denied the alleged charge with a request to drop further proceedings.

2.4. After lapse of more than five years period from the date of charge memo, one Sri Sanjeeva Rao, Addl.Director was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in terms of Rule 20 of the Rules 1991 and no Presenting Officer was appointed. Pursuant to the notice from the Enquiry Officer, petitioner submitted his detailed defense statement and deposed that an amount of Rs.25, 240.00 mentioned in charge memo is not pertaining to his period at PHC, Kambalapally and the same pertains to the period of his predecessor Dr.L.Venkanna and that he is no way concerned to the alleged allegations.

2.5. It is further stated that for the same amount and same hospital, similar charge memo was already issued to his predecessor i.e., Dr. L.Venkanna. In response to the charge memo, Dr. Venkanna by accepting his responsibility had remitted the said amount through D.D.No.313934 dtd. 13/2/2009 in favour of 1st respondent and he also addressed letter dtd. 12/2/2009 to the 1st respondent requesting to drop further action. Despite remitting the said amount by Dr. Venkanna, the respondents