Inordinate delay in concluding departmental proceedings can lead to quashing the charges against an employee, emphasizing the need for adherence to prescribed time limits in disciplinary inquiries.

ORDER :

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J.

The present Writ Petition is filed for quashing the departmental proceedings initiated under Articles of Charge issued in Rc.No.1656/2016/M4, dated 21.03.2017 in respect of an incident pertains to 2014 in spite of submitting the report by the Enquiry Officer on 05.03.2019.

2. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Forest Section Officer in February 2008 at Kamareddy Division of erstwhile Nizamabad District. The petitioner worked as a Forest Section Officer for Reddypet Section, Kamareddy Range of Kamareddy Division, from October 2009 to June 2014. During the said period, as per the estimates sanctioned by the Divisional office for construction of boundary pillars, work was executed under Vana Samrakshana Samithi (VSS) as per the procedure contemplated. Works were executed as per the estimates prepared and after works were completed, work completion reports were incorporated in the Division Accounts accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamareddy. In 2014 itself the Divisional Office accepted the works. While stood thus, the Vigilance & Enquiry personnel from the Directorate Office, conducted field inspection and found certain irregularities in respect of usage of steel and concrete for laying down foundations.

3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the report, it was found that in view of the said irregularities, loss of an amount of Rs.32,342/- was caused to the exchequer. Based on the report of Vigilance & Enquiry, dated 10.02.2015, Articles of Charge was issued by the 3^rd respondent nearly after 3 years i.e., on 21.03.2017 framing single charge. On 01.05.2017, the petitioner sought furnishing the report of D.G., Vigilance & Enquiry, dated 10.02.2015 and copies of M.Books. On furnishing the same, the petitioner submitted a reply on 04.07.2017, denying the charge in toto. The petitioner raised objections against the lapses pointed out by the Vigilance & Enquiry personnel. The petitioner was transferred from the said place and during the new incumbent period Vigilance & Enquiry, submitted reports without knowing the truth in the allegations.

3(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after submitting reply to the charge on 02.08.2017, the 3^rd respondent appointed Divisional Forest Officer, Kamareddy, as an Enquiry Authority for submitting findings within three months. Subsequently, the said Enquiry Officer was changed and Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by proceedings dated 03.10.2017 and directed him to submit his findings within three months. After lapse of four months, the 3rd respondent appointed Forest Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, as Presenting Officer. This itself shows that after lapse of three months, Presenting Officer was appointed. On 10.09.2018 i.e. after lapse of seven months, the petitioner received notice to attend before the Enquiry Officer on 19.09.2018 and after receiving the notice, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to submit his written statement and accordingly, the petitioner submitted his written statement to the Enquiry Officer on the same date by denying the charge in toto.

3(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Enquiry Officer without conducting any enquiry under Rule 20 of T.S.C.S. & C.C.A. Rules, submitted his report on 05.03.2019. After lapse of nearly six months, it was forwarded to the petitioner along with findings on 06.03.2019 and asked the petitioner to submit his defence. The Enquiry Officer without there being any evidence and discussing the evidences stated that the charge is proved. The petitioner submitted his objections on 22.03.2019 and requesting that the disciplinary