The court held that re-opening disciplinary proceedings after significant delay violated procedural rules and principles of natural justice, leading to undue prejudice against the petitioner.

ORDER:

PULLA KARTHIK, J.

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following reliefs:

(a) declare proceedings dated 26.10.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent through which denovo enquiry is initiated as bad, illegal, belated, without jurisdiction, biased, without reasons, contrary to CCA rules, 1991, amounting to non-application of mind, draconic, unconstitutional

(b) to declare proceedings dated 27.07.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent through which major punishment of stoppage of 1 increment with cumulative effect was imposed as bad illegal irrational unfair amounting to non-application of mind, amounting to relying upon 2nd enquiry officers report which is totally unsustainable, amounts to non-application of mind, non-speaking, without jurisdiction and unconstitutional

(c) to hold that the petitioner is entitled for his retrospective promotion as deputy range officer on par with his juniors and further promotion as Forest range officer on par with his juniors without reference to unnecessary disciplinary proceedings/ ACB proceedings initiated against him with all consequential benefits

(d) by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and pass…

2. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent Department as Forest Section Officer in the year 1993, and subsequently, promoted as Deputy Range Officer in the year 2014. However, solely on the ground that an Anti-Corruption Bureau case was registered against the petitioner in the year 2003, despite his eligibility, the respondents have denied his promotion in the year 2004, and promoted one Mr. Y. Gangadhar, who is (6) years junior to the petitioner, to the cadre of Deputy Range Officer. Thereafter, the said individual was also promoted as Range officer vide proceedings dated 26.01.2009. However, since the ACB case was pending against the petitioner, he was deprived of his promotions to the cadres of Deputy Range Officer and Range Officer in 2004 and 2009 respectively. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted in the said ACB case vide judgment dated 30.11.2018, and therefore, he is fully entitled for promotion on par with Mr. Y. Gangadhar.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner was earlier placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 06.02.2012 by respondent No.4, and a charge memo dated 02.03.2012 was issued to him, for which, he submitted his detailed explanation on 11.02.2014, denying the charges. However, an enquiry officer was appointed, and based on his enquiry report, disciplinary proceedings, initiated in pursuance of the aforesaid charge memo dated 02.03.2012, were dropped vide proceedings dated 03.08.2018. As such, the petitioner submitted his representations to the respondents on 07.11.2019, 05.01.2021, 18.01.2021 and 22.05.2021, seeking retrospective promotions. However, his request was rejected vide proceedings dated 12.09.2022, based on invalid and misdirected ground that he was inflicted with punishments. It is submitted that apart from the ACB case, the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceedings, which concluded with the imposition of minor punishments of ‘withholding of one increment without cumulative effect with some recovery’ in the year 2018, and ‘censure’ in the year 2023. However, the respondents have taken these subsequent punishments into account and denied denying retrospective promo