THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of Mandamus to set aside the Articles of charge issued vide G.O.Rt.No.639, Health, Medical & Family Welfare (VC-II.2) Department, dated 20.05.2009 and the consequential enquiry/action by declaring pendency of the same for the last more than 12 years as punitive, arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the verdicts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare Memo No.12735/VC/2/2008-21, dated 20.04.2015, as illegal, arbitrary and also contrary to sub rule 2 of rule 21 of APCS (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules 1991 and to pass such other order or order in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Civil Assistant Surgeon and was subsequently, promoted as Civil Surgeon Specialist in the year 2003 and thereafter, the petitioner was discharging her duties as such. It is submitted that on 20.05.2009 while the petitioner was working as Civil Surgeon Specialist, CHC, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District, Articles of Charges were framed against her for misappropriation of funds and a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.639 Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.II.2) Department. It is submitted that thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has completed the enquiry and an enquiry report dated 28.05.2013 was submitted holding that none of the charges against the petitioner have been proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has invoked the provisions of Rule 20(1) thereof APCS(CC&A) Rules for further enquiry against the petitioner, but no action was taken by the department and therefore, the petitioner had filed the present writ present challenging the charge memo and also further enquiry into the matter on the ground of inordinate delay. Subsequent thereto in the year 2022, the respondents have issued another notice for conducting enquiry. The same was challenged by filing an I.A.No.1 of 2023 and vide orders dated 28.02.2023, this Court had granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 30.12.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed counter affidavit and the matter had come up today for hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 21 of APCS(CC&A) Rules, if the disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the Enquiry report, the disciplinary authority could have issued a dissenting note along with Enquiry report to the delinquent employee and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law, but could not have issued notice for further and fresh enquiry. It is further submitted that the enquiry was also vitiated due to inordinate delay in initiating enquiry and thereafter concluding the enquiry without following the prescribed procedure. It is submitted that the charges were framed in the year 2009, while an enquiry was conducted in the year 2013 and report was submitted in 2020, and thereafter, further enquiry was directed in the year 2015 and till date, the enquiry has been concluded. Therefore, according to him, the said enquiry notice dated 31.12.2022 is not permissible. In support of her argument that the inordinate delay in enquiry is not permissible, continuation of disciplinary proceedings are not permissible, he relied upon the following two decisions:

(1) D.Srinivas Vs. Government of A.P., Transport, Roads and Buildings (Vig.I) Department and Others, [2013 (4) ALT 1 (D.B.)]

(2) G.Mallaiah Vs. A.P.State Handloom Weavers Co-

operative Society Limited and Another, [2010 CJ(AP) 1333]

5. Learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the Enquiry report dated 28.05.2013 was perfunctory and poor and therefore, the matte