IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2731 OF 2020 Between; Dr N Nooka Raju, S/o. Late Dharma Rao, Aged about 61 years, R/o. H.No.15-15-33, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam. ...Petitioner AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Health Medical and Family Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Director of Medical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents is illegal and arbitrary in conducting successive enquiries on the same allegations regarding the clinical drug trials and set aside the enquiry pursuant to the G.O.Rt No.151, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC-1) Department dated 26.04.2018 in terms of the C.B.C.I.D report dated 28.02.2014 had gone in favour of the petitioner and set aside the same as it is a successive enquiry into the same charges is not permissible in law, to call for records. -- >k.inURA ■■ lA NO: 1 OF 9070 V Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed i CPC praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be ry enquiry initiated against the petitioner in Health, Medical and pleased to stay the disciplina terms of G.O.Rt No.151 Family Welfare (VC-1) pending disposal of the writ petition. Department dated 26.04.2018 Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: SMT R ANNAPURNA GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FAMILY WELFARE & Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: GP FOR SERVICES - III 1 APHC010042722020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] • •y WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2731/2020 Between: ...PETITIONER Dr. N. Nooka Raju, AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.R ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES III 2.GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW(AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief; “ to declare the action of the Respondents is iliegal and arbitrary in conducting successive enquiries on the same allegations regarding the ciinical drug triais and set aside the enquiry pursuant to the G.O.Rt.No.151, Heaith, Medical and Family Welfare (VC-1) Department dated 26.04.2018 in terms of the C.B.C.i.D. report dated 28.02.2014 had gone in favour of the 2 petitioner and set aside the same as it is a successive enquiry into the same charges is not permissible in /aw, to call for records; and pass such other order or orders.....” Facts of the case, in brief, are that there was a news item published in Vaartha Daily Newspaper on 23.06.2011 regarding allegations of clinical drug trails of one Dr.Nooka Raju, Chief investigator and Professor of Government Mental Hospital, Visakhapatnam, who is the 2. Phychiatry petitioner herein. Basing on the said newspaper item, the Special Grade Collector, Visakhapatnam, directed the Principal of Andhra Medical Deputy College, Visakhapatnam stating that he was ordered by the Collector and District Magistrate, Visakhapatnam for enquiry on drug trails in Government Hospital for Mental care. The C.l.D. Department conducted enquiry and said enquiry report reveals that there is no misappropriation by the petitioner herein Despite the same, the and it is only done by professional jealousy, respondents have formed articles of charge and by way of G.O.Rt.No.350 HM & FW dated 24.06.2015 directed for a fresh enquiry into the allegations of However, the irregularities committed against the petitioner herein. Government again issued G.O.Rt.No.151, dated 26.04.2018 appointing one Dr.Ravi Shankar Ayyanur l.P.S. to enquire into the charge and asked the petitioner to appear before the enquiry office on petitioner has attended the enquiry and has submitted the available material to the respondents. Although the enquiry report is not communicated to the petitioner, it appears that a criminal misappropriation case was lodged against 19.07.2018 and that the 3 herein sought for documents to enable him to the petitioner. The petitioner submit his written the same were Further stated that more respondents only with an repeated enquiries cannot be writ petition is filed. iry report dated 21.05.2019, but by the respondent authorities, conducted by the into hardship and explanation along with enquiry not furnished to the petitioner than six enquiries intention to put the petitioner conducted as per the law. Hence the present were While respondent filed counter, large scale criminal to have took place in Mental Care, Visakhapatnam the other hand, the 1 contents of the writ petition, it is stated that, a 3. On denying the with criminal conspiracy reported misappropriation clinical drug trails in Government Hospital for careful examination of Professor of during the year 2000-2011 and the Government after prosecute the petitioner being officials and have decided to the matter. conducted departmental with two other Aggrieved by the Psychiatry along Government directions, the .1663 of 2019 and 1662 of of Police, proceedings against them and ne Dr.V.Padma have filed W.P.Nos petitioner 2019 before this Court questioning the action of the Commissioner FIR against the petitioner inspite City to take steps to register report dated 28.02.2014 which was Visakhapatnam in their favour. of the CBCID report dated which was considered by against the Enquiry submitted his explanation Further submitted that 14.12.2018, the petitioner i 4 the Government and concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner are held proved and proposed for imposition of major penalty of cut in 9% pension permanently against him under sub-rule 1 of Rule 9 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 for the proved charges. Again, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.06.2022 as to why a major penalty of cut in 9% pension permanently against him should not be imposed against him for the proved charges and reply is still awaited from the petitioner. Further stated that the petitioner cannot rely only on the report of the CBCID for seeking the relief in the present writ petition, as the proceedings before the CBCID and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the misconduct are entirely different. Hence sought for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant 4. Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare, appearing for the respondents 1 to 3. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the 1®^ respondent on 10.02.2023 5. i.e. during pendency of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the 6. matter is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23254 of 2021, dated 24.11.2021, and hence, requests this Court to pass similar order in this petition also. The operative portion of the said order is as follows;- 5 “A reading of the said Memo dated 02.11.2021 goes to show that before imposing major penalty against the delinquent officers, the Government vide letter dated 07.05.2018 requested the APPSC to give their concurrence and in reply to the same, the APPSC vide letter dated 10.08.2018 requested the Government to furnish certain information along with check-list to the Commission for their concurrence to impose major penalty on the delinquent officers. Further, on the request of the Secretary, APPSC, the Government vide Memo dated 19.11.2018 requested the CDMA, Guntur, to furnish check-list and required information for imposing major penalty against the delinquent officers. In view of the said Memo dated 02.11.2021, the learned Government Pleader submits that the respondents, after receipt of the required information, would conclude the final disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months. Though the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the judgments relied on by him merit consideration, in view of the Memo referred to above, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to conclude the final disciplinary proceedings, within a period of two months from today. In the event, the same are not concluded within the stipulated time, the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner shall stand quashed.” Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical, Health and 7. Family Welfare does not refute the said submission. In view of the submission made by both learned counsels and upon perusing the entire material available on record, this Court deems fit to dispose of the present Writ Petition in terms of the said order. 8. 6 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.23254 of 2021, dated 24.11.2021. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. The Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order passed in W.P.No.23254 of 2021, dated 24.11.2021, to this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO TRAR DEPUTY RE //TRUE COPY// SE ON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Special Chief Secretary to Government, Health Medical and Family Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Director of Medical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. One CC to Smt R Annapurna, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Medical Health & Family Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services - III, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of order dated 24.11.2021 in W.P.No.23254 of 2021) RAM HIGH COURT DATED:29/01/2025 t? 0 7 MAR 2075 S) ^ . Current oection . ^ ORDER WP.No.2731 of 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS T THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No. 23254 of 2021 ORDER: Heard Mr. S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, and Mr. P.C. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 4* respondent. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner since 2015 in respect of the allegations relating to the year 2011-2012 without finalising the same and depriving the right of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher cadre, as void, illegal, arbitrary,-unconstitutional and contrary to various judgments of the Hort’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble High Courts. 2. The petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in the 4 respondent-Municipality. Earlier, he worked as Junior Assistant (A1 Clerk) in the 4“’ respondent-Municipality from August, 2011 to March, 2012. While so, he was served with a Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.453 dated 29.06.2015 wherein it was alleged that the petitioner committed imegularities in respect of property tax by entering lesser measurements in online than the actual measurements for the assessment year 2011-2012. The petitioner submitted his explanation 29.08,2015 denying the charges levelled against him. Instead of considering the explanation of the petitioner, the 1 respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer for conducting 3. on NJSJ .WP.No.2325‘t_2021 enquiry in the year 2016. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report in the year 2017, but the E' respondent has not passed final orders so far. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges levelled against the petitioner relates back to the year 2011-2012 and pursuant to the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner, suitable explanation/reply was submitted as long back as on 29.08.2015 and thereafter, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry, submitted a report on 29.06.2017. He submits that though more than four years have elapsed, the respondents have not passed any final orders till date, as a result of the same, the petitioner is deprived of his right for promotion to the next higher cadre. 1) The learned counsel submits that the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. He submits that the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings is totally attributable to the respondents. The learned counsel also submits that in the light of the expression of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Limited Vs. Jitendra Pd. Sing, reported in 2001 (10) SCC 530, and M. .V Bijalani Vs. Union ofIndia, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88, as also the judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad in D. Srinivas Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2013 (4) ALT 1, the proceedings impugned in the writ petition are liable to be set aside, on the ground of inordinate delay in at 3 NJS,J W.P.No.23254_2021 concluding the disciplinary proceedings. The learned counsel also places reliance on a latest judgment rendered by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3421 of 2021 dated 19.03.2021. 5. Learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel have not disputed the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. However, the Government Pleader for Services-IV placed on record a copy of Memo No.l0951/VIG.III/201 4 dated 02.11.2021 wherein it was mentioned that the Government provisionally decided to impose penalties/dropping of further action against the charged Officers/petitioners referred to therein. 6. A reading of the said Memo dated 02.11.2021 goes to show that before imposing major penalty against the delinquent officers, the Government vide letter dated 07.05.2018 requested the APPSC to give their concurrence and in reply to the same, the APPSC vide letter dated 10.08.2018 requested the Government to furnish certain information along with check-list to the Commission for their concurrence to impose major penalty on the delinquent officers. Further, on the request of the Secretary, APPSC, the Government vide Memo dated 19.11.2018 requested the CDMA, Guntur, to furnish check-list and required information for imposing major penalty against the delinquent officers. In view of the said Memo dated 02.11.2021, the learned Government Pleader submits that the respondents, after receipt of the required infomaation, would conclude the final NJS,J .WP.No.23254_2021 \ disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months. Though the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the judgments relied on by him merit consideration, in view of the Memo referred to above, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to conclude the final disciplinary proceedings, within a period of two months from today. In the event, the same are not concluded within the stipulated time, the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner shall stand quashed. 7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of No order as to costs. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of NINALA JAYASURYA, J 24"’ November, 2021 cbs