r % [3311 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 1736 OF 2021 Between: D. M. SYAMALA, W/o. G. Rajasekhar, Aged 62 years, Deputy Inspector General Registration and Stamps, Eluru (retd), Rio. Flat No. 202, Indira Towers, American Hospital Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada, Krishna District ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government Revenue Registration -1 Department IV-Block, Velagapudi, Guntur District 522503 2. Director and Inspector General Of Registration and Stamps Eedupugallu, Krishna District 523 144 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare the charge memo No. Rc.No, X2/2897/1994-Dated 27-12-2007 as illegal, void ab initio and violative of articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and time barred and quash the same and direct the respondents to sanction remaining pension and gratuity. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to declare that the inaction of the respondents in not concluding the enquiry till date is contrary to law and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of Constitution of India, and direct the respondents to sanction her 80% anticipatory Death-cum-Retiremen t Gratuity (DCRG) in accordance with clause (c) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980, by suspending the Charge Memo R.C.NO.X2/28971/1994 dtd. 27-12-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. AMARA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents; GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: APHC010476342021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMS [3311] Monday, the Fifth day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition Transfered from A.P.A.T. No: 1736 of 2021 {O.A.No.837 of 2018) Between: D.M. Syamala ...Petitioner and State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: I.Amara Rama Rao Counsel for the respondents: I.G.P. for Services-I The Court made the following: 2 W.P.(A.T.) No.l736of 2021 If ORDER: A petition was initially filed as O.A.No.837 of 2018 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which, after transfer of the matter to this Court, was re-numbered as W.P.(A.T.) No. 1736 of 2021. The petitioner sought to declare the Charge Memo issued vide Rc.No.X2/28971/1994, dated 27.12.2007 as illegal, void ab initio and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and time barred and quash the same; and direct the respondents to sanction the remaining pension and gratuity and pass any other appropriate order. 2. 3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows; The petitioner was appointed as Reserve Sub-Registrar during the year 1979 and promoted to several levels i.e.. Assistant District Registrar, District Registrar, Deputy Inspector General and retired from service on 31.05.2013. a. While the petitioner was working as Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada, the impugned charge memo was issued by the Commissioner & Inspector General, Registration & Stamps, vide Rc.No.X2/28971/1994, 27.12.2007, levelling the following charges against the petitioner: b. “Charge - I: While the petitioner was working as Joint Sub- Registrar, Vijayawada had admitted and registered (17) documents i.e., 1840/094, 2925/94, 46/94, 1638/94, 1640/94, 1641/94, 1643/94, 2022/94, 2023/94, 2024/94, 2027/94, 2272/94, 2273/94, 2769/94, 2770/94, 2771/94 and 2772/94 pertaining to assigned lands at Sub-Registrar Office, Vijayawada inspite of it being included in the list of prohibited 3 W.P.(A.T.) No.l736 of 2021 lands from registration. She failed to scrutinize above documents and registered the documents violating the instructions issued in the A.P. Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and Inspector Memo.No.G1/32938/92, dated 20.10.1993. Therefore, it is a clear lapse and misconduct on the part of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada and unbecoming of a Government servant and violated the Rule -3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964. General's Charge-11: While the petitioner was working as Joint Sub- Registrar, Vijayawada has failed to submit her explanation pertaining to registration of Assigned lands documents mentioned in Charge -I, as she has violated the instructions issued by the A.P. Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 and Inspector General's Memo.No.G1/32938/92, dated 20.10.1993 though she has been reminded several times by the Deputy Inspector General (R&S), Eluru and also from this office. Therefore, it is a clear lapse and misconduct on the part of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada and unbecoming of a Government servant and violated the Rule -3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” The petitioner submitted her explanation on 24.03.2008 denying the charges. The presenting officer was appointed on 16.04.2008 and the inquiry officer was appointed on 28.10.2009. But, till now, no final order was passed. As the inquiry was ordered in the year 2007, the petitioner retired on 31.05.2013, and further, there is un explained delay of about 24 years from the date of the event in concluding enquiry proceedings, the petitioner filed the present petition to set aside the impugned charge memo. c. ■A ''.'j V, 4 W.P.(A.T.) No.l736of 2021 In support of her contention, the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan\ wherein at paragraph No. 19 it was held as follows: 4. “It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. 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 prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with ' 1998 see (L&S) 1044 K 5 W.P.(A.T.) No.1736 of 2021 a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.” Sri Vuyyuru Ram Manohar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I, submitted written instructions of the respondent No.2, vide Lr.No.X2/28971/1994,dated 28.08.2024, wherein, apart from the following instructions, the respondent No.2 sought three weeks’ time for filing counter affidavit. Since August, 2024, no counter affidavit has been filed. The instructions are briefly as follows; 5. “...vide C & I.G.’s Proceeding No.X2/28971/1994, dated 28.10.2009, the D.I.G. (R & S), Visakhapatnam was appointed as regular inquiry officer (R.E.O.) and the D.I.G. (R & S), Eluru, was appointed as presenting officer. The R.E.O. has submitted report vide Lr.No.E1/483/2008, dated 13.11.2009 and the charges framed against the petitioner are held proved. The report of the R.E.O. along with the connected material was submitted to the government vide C & I.G.’s Lr.No.X2/28971/1994, dated 16.12.2009, as the state government is the competent authority for imposing penalty to 6 W.P.{A.T.) No.l736of 2021 the petitioner who is in the cadre of District Registrar (on leave). The government, vide memo No.6488A/ig-VI (1)/2010-1, dated 21.04.2010, after examining the matter in detail, provisionally decided to impose one of the major punishments against the petitioner on the charges made against her under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules, 1991, based on the analysis and findings of the inquiry officer and the petitioner was directed to submit her representation, if any in the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her representation to the government on 23.06.2010 and the same was submitted to the government vide C & I.G.’s Lr.No.X2/28971/1994, dated 20.07.2010. The petitioner submitted her representation stating “that there is no ban on registration of ‘Grama Kantam’ and that the other Sub-Registrars accepting registrations of the same”. In this regard, the government requested the C& I.G. to conform the above issue. The C & I.G.’s Lr.No.X2/28971/1994, dated 23.08.2010, submitted that there are different types of Grama Kantam, some are alienable others are not alienable, which will be decided by the revenue authorities concerned. If the Grama Kantam is not alienable, the properties will not be registered. The government vide Memo No.6488A/ig.ll(1)/2010-10, dated 17.06.2016, requested to furnish specific remarks on the report of the District Registrar, Vijayawada, dated 01.07.2015 and also requested clarify whether Grama Kantam^ 4 0^^ 7 W.P.{A.T.) No.1736 of 2021 lands can be registered in acreage basis or square yards. Accordingly, the District Registrar, Vijaywada has submitted report vide Lr.No.G1/1003/2009, dated 28.03.2019 and the file is under process.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay itself is a ground sufficient to grant the relief prayed in the petition. 6. In the light of the above decision, when the facts in this case noted above are examined, there is inordinate delay at every stage. Even now, there is no progress without any reason at all. The petitioner is not alleged or shown to be responsible for the delay. As such, the petitioner is entitled to the relief. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No costs. 8. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ' SECTION OFrlCEt^ //TRUE COPY// To 1. OneCC to SRI. AMARA RAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:05/05/2025 ORDER o ■ i'/x’ WP(AT).No.1736of2021 -p'v 0 7 JIJL o\ iltJJ 'm★ THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS