IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged disciplinary proceedings without resolution can lead to quashing of charges and entitlement to retirement benefits.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed to declare non-payment of retirement benefits to the petitioner by the respondents on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings basing on the charge memo dated 23.06.1997 despite superannuation of petitioner on 31.07.2017, as illegal, arbitrary and consequential direction to the respondents to release of retirement benefits of the petitioner.

2. Heard Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel representing Sri V.Srinivas, learned counsel for petitioner on record and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents.

3. Brief facts that lead to filing of present writ petition are that petitioner was appointed as Village Assistant in the year 1987 and the said post was subsequently re-designated as Panchayat Secretary and later on as Village Revenue Officer (VRO) and petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2017. While in service, the petitioner was issued with charge memo on 23.06.1997 by the 2nd respondent, wherein thirteen allegations were made against him and petitioner submitted his explanation on 28.08.1997 to the charge memo denying the same. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.12.1995 by the 2nd respondent even before issuance of the charge memo and the same was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.3959 of 1996 before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. on 19.06.2097 directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and if the enquiry is not completed within the stipulated period, the respondents are further directed to reinstate the petitioner into service without prejudice to the enquiry. Accordingly, suspension was revoked by the 2nd respondent by an order dated 20.10.1997.

4. It is further contended that show-cause notice was issued on 18.11.2003 by the 2nd respondent stating that the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Peddapalli, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and he has submitted his report and that basing on the said report, why punishment of removal from service should not be inflicted on him. Petitioner submitted explanation/ representation on 03.12.2003 stating that no regular enquiry was conducted and there was no examination of witnesses and without there being any material, the enquiry officer could not find him guilty of the charges and requested the disciplinary authority to drop the proceedings. Petitioner once again approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.8182 of 2003 questioning the show-cause notice dated 18.11.2003 and the said O.A. was disposed of on 20.03.2006 directing the respondents to pass order on the explanation dated 03.12.2003 submitted by the petitioner. However, no orders have been passed on the showcause notice dated 18.11.2003 and no punishment has been imposed consequent to the said show cause notice.

5. Consequent upon creation of new districts in the State, the petitioner’s case is now within the jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent. Even after lapse of considerable time, no action has been taken by the 2nd respondent on the show-cause notice. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to retirement benefits. Since respondents failed to release the retirement benefits, the present writ petition is filed.

6. Though the writ petition was filed in the year 2017, till date no counter has been filed by the respondents and no material or instructions are placed on behalf of the respondents on record as to whether any orders are passed on the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 03.12.2003 in response to the show-cause notice dated 18.11.2003.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that charge memo was issued in the year 1997 and show-cause notice was issued on 18.11.2003 basing on the purported enquiry report of the RDO, Peddapalli and despite specific orders of Tribunal dated 20.03.2006 in O.A.No.8182 of 2003, no orders