THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO.28266 OF 2024

ORDER:

Seeking to declare that G.O.Rt.No.191, M.A. (E2), dated

18.02.2003 and Memo No.10396/Vig.III (1)/2002, dated 13.09.2023 of respondent No.1 are illegal, arbitrary and vitiated on account of inordinate delay in conclusion of the proceedings and set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to take steps to release due service pension and other retiral benefits from the date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2003 along with permissible rate of interest immediately, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Heard Sri K.Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Murali Krishna, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent No.3.

3) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has joined in the then Andhra Pradesh Secretarial Service as LDC in January, 1968. Later, he was promoted as an Assistant Section Officer in 1975, further promoted as Section Officer in 1990. Further, as provided under Rule I, he was considered and deputed to work as MRO in West Godavari District for a period of three years from 1993 to 1995. Subsequently, he was appointed by transfer as Municipal Commissioner in the year 1995 and thereafter promoted as Special Grade Commissioner in the year 1997 and further promoted as Selection Grade Municipal Commissioner in the year 1999. Further, while working as Municipal Commissioner, LB Nagar Municipality, Hyderabad, he retired from service in June, 2003, on attaining the age of superannuation. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he retired in the year 2003, still he is being paid provisional pension only on account of tendency of departmental proceedings inspite of the fact that he worked as Municipal Commissioner, Nizamabad, for a very short period of three months in the year 2000. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Municipal Commissioner at L.B.Nagar Municipality, respondent No.1 has issued impugned order vide G.O.Rt.No.191, dated 18.02.2003, framing three charges, which are not specific and distinct in nature. As such, they are violative of TS CS (CCA) Rules, 1991. Further, the said charges are relating to inaction in taking steps to raise the demands in collection of advertising tax, failure to supervise the Town Planning officials in advertisement boards erected and failure in maintenance of proper records of advertisement boards. To the said charges, petitioner has submitted his detailed statement of defence denying the charges and explaining valid reasons thereof. Subsequently, during the course of enquiry, he also submitted further statement of defence along with a copy of G.O.Ms.No.549, dated 30.11.2001 which prescribes the duties and responsibilities of various officials working in Municipalities. However, without considering the same, a common enquiry was ordered vide G.O.Rt.No.645 dated 05.05.2008 against nine Charged Officers, including the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer i.e. Commissioner of Inquiries conducted enquiry and submitted a common enquiry report on 30.10.2009 i.e. after a lapse of more than 6 ½ years from issuance of charge memo dated 18.02.2003. Further, after a lapse of 15 years, the present impugned show cause notice vide Memo No.10396/Vig.III (1)/2002, dated 13.09.2023, has been issued by respondent No.1 indicating the decision already taken to impose the penalty, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 25.09.2023 narrating all the lapses on the part of the respondents in concluding the departmental enquiry and further stating that though he was not the Commissioner of Nizamabad Municipality for the financial year 2000-2001, yet, the authorities have framed the charges against the petitioner for the said period, which is bad in law and therefore requested to drop the proceedi