APHC010365062024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) a. Be THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 18878 OF 2024 Between: S. Chinnaiah, S/o.Malakondaiah, Aged 63 years, Occ; Hostel Welfare Officer (Retd.) R/o.Door No.25-02-286, 6th Street, Lake View Colony, Podalakur Road, A.K.Nagar Post Office, Nellore Town and District - 524004, 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 Commissioner and Director, Backward Classes Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Vishal Complex, 0pp. Siddaratha Engineering College, Vijayawada, Krishna District 3. The District collector BC Wing, Collectorate, Anantapur, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents 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 in the nature of writ of mandamus a writ or order or direction more particularly one as the charge memo issued to the petitioner on 27.11.2019 wherein the inquiry continued up to 04.07.2023 wherein it is still continuing to this date and pending which date of misconduct occurred that i comes to nearly 9 years from on 28.12.2015 and wherein the petitioner retired on 28.02.2021. Therefore by applying the law laid down in A.P. revised Pension Rules 1980 Rule 9 (2) (b) (1) and (II) and by applying the law laid down in STATE of UP's Vs. Shrikrishna Pandey the Charge dated 27-11-2019 is liable to be set aside and consequently direct the 1®‘ respondent to release the full pension, gratuity, commutation and other terminal benefits applicable with interest as per rules. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned charge memo in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 21 of 2017 dated 27.11.2019 Issued by the Chairman, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, A.P., Hyderabad for the surprise check conducted by A.C.B authorities of Anantapur Range, Anantapur on 28.12.2015 pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 1®‘ respondent to release the full pension, gratuity, commutation and other terminal benefits applicable with interest as per rules. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAVI CHANDRA BANDLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following order: APHC010365062024 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: 18878/2024 Between: 1.S CHINNAIAH, S/O.MALAKONDAIAH. AGED 63 YEARS, OCC.HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER (RETD.) R/O.DOOR NO.25-02-286, 6TH STREET, LAKE VIEW COLONY, PODALAKUR ROAD, A.K.NAGAR POST OFFICE, NELLORE TOWN AND DISTRICT - 524004, 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, OPR SIDDARATHA ENGINEERING COLLEGE, VIJAYAWADA,KRISHNA DISTRICT 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BOWING, COLLECTORATE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR 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 in the nature of writ of mandamus a writ or order or direction more particularly one as the charge memo CGR, J. W.P.No.18878 of 2024 issued to the petitioner on 27.11.2019 wherein the inquiry continued up to 04.07.2023 wherein it is still continuing to this date and pending which date of misconduct occurred that i comes to nearly 9 years from on 28.12.2015 and wherein the petitioner retired on 28.02.2021. Therefore by applying the law laid down in A.P. revised Pension Rules 1980 Rule 9 (2) (b) (1) and (II) and by applying the law laid down in STATE of UP'S Vs. Shrikrishna Pandey the Charge dated 27-11-2019 is liable to be set aside and consequently direct the 1 st respondent to release the full pension, gratuity, commutation and other terminal benefits applicable with interest as per rules and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RAVI CHANDRA BANDLAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: CGR, J W.P No 18878 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Writ Petition No.18878 of 2024 ORDER: Petitioner assails the action of respondents in not processing the pension and retirement benefits payable to petitioner on account of continuation of disciplinary proceedings, initiated pursuant to charge memo, dated 27.11.2019, issued by the respondents on the ground of non-conclusion of the enquiry within time, as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner while working as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-I, ACB surprise check held on 28.12.2015 in the office of the Government B.C. Boys Hostel, Talupula Village and Mandal, 2. Anantapuramu District, on certain allegations, petitioner has been Petitioner submitted issued charge memo, dated 27.11.2019. statement of defence refuting the charges levelled against him. Later, enquiry officer came to be appointed and the inquiry is still going on, and no report has yet been submitted. Meanwhile, petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2021. Though petitioner is entitled for pension and retirement benefits, on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, he has not been settled the same. Therefore, petitioner preferred the present writ petition. CGR, J. W.RNo.18878 of 2024 Though this writ petition has been instituted way back on 3. 19.08.2024, and now nearly 11 months have elapsed, no counter affidavit has been filed so far. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the disciplinary proceedings in normal course, ought to have been completed within three months in case of simple cases and six months in case of complicated cases, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 01.11.2018 and as reiterated vide G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. As there is an inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner cannot be denied the retirement benefits on the said pretext. Even otherwise, such an inordinate delay cannot justify the indefinite continuation of the disciplinary proceedings and the same need to be concluded. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll appearing for the respondents submits that the enquiry would be 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. CGR, J W.P.No.18878 of 2024 Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an employee, are to 7. be completed within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases as per G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 01.11.2008. In the case on hand, the petitioner is facing the charges of corrupt motive, abuse of official position. In view of the above expressions, employees cannot work 8. under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary proceedings. If no time schedules are fixed for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.679 will be frustrated. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan\ the Hon’ble Apex Court 9. 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 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 (1998) 4 see 154 CGR, J. W.P.No.18878 of 2024 prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it....” In P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, T.N. Housing Board^, the Hon’ble 10. 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 11. 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 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 2 (2005)^6 see 636 3 (2012) 11 see 565 CGR, J. W.P. No 18876 of 2024 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 Aie 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 [{^998) 4 See 154 : 1998 See (L&S) 1044 : AIR 1998 Se 1833] , Food Corporation of India y.V.P. Bhatia [(1998) 9 See 131 : 1998 See (L&S) 466] , Supt. of Police y.T. Natarajan [^999 SCC (L&S) 646] , M.V. Bijianiy. Union of India [(2006) 5 See 88 : 2006 See (L&S) 919 : AIR 2006 Se 3475], P.D. Agrawal v. 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. In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place on 28.12.2015 and disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated in the year 2019. Though Inquiry Officer was appointed, no report has been 12. submitted so far. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in of the above discussion, the respondents are directed to conclude the inquiry, within a period of 3 (three) months from today, failing which the charge memo issued to the petitioner on 27.11.2019, shall stand quashed and the petitioner shall be released all retirement and pensionary benefits. 13. view CGR, J. W.P.No.18878 of 2024 Af \ 14. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. '"X There shall be 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, Department, State of Andhra 1. The Principal Secretary, B.C.Welfare Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist. 2. The Commissioner and Director, Backward Classes Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Vishal Complex, 0pp. Siddaratha Engineering College, Vijayawada, Krishna District 3. The District Collector BC Wing, Collectorate, Anantapur, Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh. 4. One CC to Sri Ravi Chandra Bandlamudi, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Services II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies Cnr i \ HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 18878 OF 2024 g{ I 8 JUL 2025 )S ^k.^i*«uMntSecyou^ ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS