■ ( It APHC010249882024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12381 OF 2024 Between: M.Suvarna Glory Bai, W/o.V.S.Kristopher, Aged 68 Welfare Officer (Retd.) R/o.Zion Prayer House, Bethanipeta, Bhimavaram-534201, Bhimavaram District A.P. years, Occ. Hostel Mission Hospital Road, ...Petitioner/s AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. B.C. Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Commisisoner and Director, Backward Classes Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, College. Vijayawada, Krishna District 3. The District collector (BC-Wing), Collectorate, Bhimaravaram, Bhimamaram District, Andhra Pradesh. Vishal Complex. 0pp. Siddaratha Engineering ...Respondent/s Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus. (a) To call for the records relating to the present impugned charge memo issued in Rc.No.A1/351/2008, dt.15.06.2009 of the 3'^'^ respondent, and set aside or quash the same on the ground of inordinate delay and latches on the part of the respondents for continuing and not concluding the proceedings for more than 16 years despite of cooperation from the petitioner and in spite of O.A.No.2862/2017 directions from the Tribunal in dt.02.11.2017 and in of various judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble court including orders issued view in G.O.Ms.No.679 GA(Ser.C) dt.01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91, dt.12.09.2022 Department of the Government of AP. (b) And consequently to hold that continuing the department and proceedings for more than 16 years, period and not concluding said proceedings years together even after retirement of the petitioner despite of cooperation and on account of not releasing the petitioner's benefits and terminal benefits such Commutation, surrender leave I service pension and other retiral as remaining 25percent pension, Gratuity, encashment amount, SPP Scale, on completion of 24 years of service, including increments is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable volatile of Article 14, 16, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution exercise of power, vindictive attitude, of India, (c) And consequently, direct the respondent to forthwith release the withhold benefits and terminal benefits with interest @ 24 percent date of retirement. retiral per annum from the lA NO: 1 OF 2094 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed In support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to forthwith sanction and release the remaining 25 percent pension. Gratuity, commutation, including withhold increments and other connected terminal benefits pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: RAVI CHANDRA BANDLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES The Court made the following order: II A APHC010249882024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12381/2024 Between: 1.M.SUVARNA GLORY BAI, W/O.V.S.KRISTOPHER, AGED 68 YEARS, OCC.HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER (RETD.) R/O.ZION PRAYER HOUSE, MISSION HOSPITAL ROAD, BETHANIPETA, BHIMAVARAM-534201, BHIMAVARAM DISTRICT, A. P. ...PETITIONER AND 1 .THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. B.C.WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST. 2.THE COMMISISONER AND DIRECTOR, BACKWARD CLASSES WELFARE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VISHAL COMPLEX. OPP. SIDDARATHA ENGINEERING COLLEGE. VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BOWING, COLLECTORATE, BHIMARAVARAM, BHIMAMARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction CGR, J. WPNo 12381 of 2024 more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus, (a) To call for the records relating to the present impugned charge memo issued in Rc.No.A1/351/2008, dt.15.06.2009 of the 3rd respondent, and set aside or quash the same on the ground of inordinate delay and latches on the part of the respondents for continuing and not concluding the proceedings for more than 16 years despite of cooperation from the petitioner and in spite of directions from the Tribunal in O.A.No.2862/2017, dt.02.11.2017 and in view of various judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Hon'ble court including orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.679 GA(Ser.C) Department dt.01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91, dt.12.09.2022 of the Government of AP. (b) And consequently to hold that continuing the department and proceedings for more than 16 years, period and not concluding said proceedings years together even after retirement of the petitioner despite of cooperation and on account of not releasing the petitioner's service pension and other retiral benefits and terminal benefits such as remaining 25percent pension, Gratuity, Commutation, surrender leave encashment amount, SPP Scale completion of 24 years of service, including increments is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable exercise of vindictive attitude, volatile of Article 14, 16, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India, (c) And consequently, direct the respondent to forthwith release the withhold retiral benefits and terminal benefits with interest @ 24 percent per annum from the date of retirement and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RAVI CHANDRA BANDLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GPFOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: , on power. CGR, J. WP No 12381 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Petition No.12381 of 2024 ORDER: Petitioner assails impugned charge-memo, dated 15.06.2009, issued by the respondent on the ground of non-conclusion of enquiry within time despite the order, dated 02.11.2017, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.2862 of 2017, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Petitioner, while working as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-11 at Government B.C. Girls Hostel, Penugonda, on certain irregularities was issued charge-memo, dated 15.06.2009, to which, she submitted statement of defence and enquiry officer came to be appointed, who later concluded the enquiry and submitted report, dated 26.12.2012. Despite the same, as no further action was forthcoming and meanwhile, petitioner retired from service on attaining age of superannuation on 30.06.2016, she preferred O.A.No.2862 of 2017 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. By order, dated 02.11.2017, the same came to be disposed of directing the respondents therein to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within three months from the date of receipt of copy of that order. Despite the said order, as neither proceedings came to be concluded nor petitioner was released the i CGR, J. W.P.No.12381 of 2024 balance 25% of withheld pension benefits, she preferred the present writ petition. 3. Though this writ petition has been instituted way back on 18.06.2024, and now one year has elapsed, no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inordinate delay in concluding the proceedings cannot be found fault with on the petitioner for denying her remaining and balance pensionary benefits and also contends that as the enquiry is inordinately delayed, no purpose would serve in continuing the same rather the same has to be quashed. Even Government has issued specific timelines vide G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 01.11.2008, and G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, providing that the enquiry has to be concluded within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases, as the charge memo came to be issued on 15.06.2009, enquiry ought to have been concluded long back, therefore, sought for quashing of the charge-memo. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll ' appearing for the respondents submits that the enquiry would be CGR, J. W.R No. 12381 of 2024 completed within some time frame in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions. 7. It appears charge-memo was issued on 15.06.2009 and even enquiry officer submitted report on 26.12.2012. However, as no further proceedings were forthcoming, petitioner even approached the Tribunal for conclusion of the enquiry. Despite the Tribunal clearly directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry within three months from the date of receipt of that order, dated 02.11.2017, even till today, the enquiry has not been concluded. Petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2016 and has been paid the retirement and pensionary benefits upto 75% by withholding the remaining 25%. This Court finds no justification in retaining the remaining 25% for no fault of petitioner. 8. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan\ the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The (1998) 4 see 154 CGR, J, W.PNo 12381 of 2024 delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it....” 9. In P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board^, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “11 The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.” In Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra 10. Mirdha^, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that before the charge sheet is quashed, the Court must consider the gravity of the charge and all other relevant factors before coming to the said conclusion. Para.8 of the said judgment reads as under; “8. The law does not permit quashing of charge-sheet in a routine manner. In case the delinquent employee has any 2 (2005) 6 see 636 3 (2012) 11 see 565 CGR, J WP No 12381 of 2024 grievance in respect of the charge-sheet he must raise the issue by filing a representation and wait for the decision of the disciplinary authority thereon. In case the charge-sheet is challenged before a court/tribunal on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings or delay in concluding the proceedings, the court/tribunal may quash the charge-sheet after considering the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors involved in the case weighing all the facts both for and against the delinquent employee and must reach the conclusion which is just and proper in the circumstance. (Vide State ofM.P. v. Bani Singh [1990 Supp SCC 738 : 1991 see (L&S) 638 : (1991) 16 ATe 514] , State of Punjab V. Chaman Lai Goya! [(1995) 2 See 570 : 1995 See (L&S) 541 : (1995) 29 ATS 546] , Registrar, Coop. Societies y. Sachindra Nath Pandey [{^995) 3 See 134 ; 1995 see (L&S) 648 ; (1995) 29 ATS 538] , Union of India v. Ashok Kacker [^995 Supp (1) See 180 : 1995 See (L&S) 374 : (1995) 29 ATS 145] , Prohibition & Excise Deptt. V. L. Srinivasan [(1996) 3 See 157 ; 1996 See (L&S) 686 : (1996) 33 ATS 745] Radhakishan [0998) 4 See 154 ; 1998 See (L&S) 1044 : AIR 1998 Se 1833] , Food Corporation of India m.V.P. Bhatia [(1998) 9 See 131 : 1998 See (L&S) 466] , Supt of Police y.T. Natarajan 0999 SCC (L&S) 646] BijIanI v. Union of India [(2006) 5 See 88 ; 2006 SCe (L&S) 919 : AIR 2006 Se 3475], P.D. Agrawaly. SBI [(2006) 8 See 776 : (2007) 1 See (L&S) 43] and Govt, of A. P. v. V. Appala Swamy [(2007) 14 See 49 : (2009) 1 See (L&S) 440] .)’’ State of A.P. v. N. M.V. In view of the above, employees cannot work under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary proceedings. If no time schedules are fixed for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the very 11. purpose of G.O.Ms.No.679 will be frustrated. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the afore cited cases also held that in case where there is inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the employee cannot be made to suffer and therefore. 12. CGR, j W.P No,12381 of 2024 has quashed the charge-memo. However, in the present case, as narrated above, there is absolutely no justification forthcoming for such inordinate delay and petitioner is made to run forum to forum for expeditious completion of enquiry, however, respondents have not responded. In view of the same, the writ petition has to succeed. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of and the charge- memo in Rc.No.A1/351/2008, dated 15.06.2009, issued by the respondent, is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to release the remaining 25% of the pensionary benefits and other benefits to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Commisisoner Department, Pradesh, B.C.Welfare and Director, Backward Classes Welfare State of Andhra Pradesh, Siddaratha Engineering College. Vijayawada, Krishna District Vishal Complex. 0pp. 3. The District collector (BC Wing), Bhimamaram District, Andhra Pradesh Collectorate, Bhimaravaram 4. One CC to SRI. RAVI CHANDRA BANDLAMUDI, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCS to GP FOR SERVICES II, High Court of Andhra [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies Pradesh croo HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 12381 OF 2024 1 8 JUL 2025 )g Sectig DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS