APHC010389782024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 19853/2024 Between: 1. P. RATNAKAR RAO,, S/O. P. SATYA VARDHANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC SUPERINTENDENT, O/O. DM AND HO, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, R/O H.NO.11-128, BMBS ROAD, VENKATESWARA PARADISE, 2ND FLOOR. NEAR SINDURA TOWERS, PRASADAMPADU, VIJAYAWADA RURAL, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, HEALTH, MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE (VC.11.1) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AP SECRETARIAT. VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWAD ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the proceedings of 1st respondent in GO.Rt.No.262 dated 16.03.2024 issued by Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.II.1) Department according sanction for disciplinary action against petitioner and consequential GO.Rt.No.263 dated 16.03.2024 issued by Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.II.1) Department issued by 1st respondent proposing to hold an enquiry against petitioner herein after nearly 20 years after alleged incident of the year 2004 after his retirement from service as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India and APCS (CCandA) Rules, 1991 and consequently quash/set-aside the above said proceedings….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is presently working as Office Superintendent in the office of the DM&HO, Vijayawada, NTR District. Earlier, in the year 2004, he worked as Senior Assistant on deputation on a weekly twice basis at Primary Health Centre, Kankipadu. However, he received proceedings dated 29.04.2024 from the 2nd respondent communicating G.O.Rt.No.262 and G.O.Rt.No.263 dated 16.03.2024 issued by the Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, whereby sanction was accorded to conduct common disciplinary proceedings against him and two others, and articles of charges were framed under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991. In response, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 17.05.2024 denying the allegations and requested that the charges be dropped on the ground that initiation of disciplinary proceedings nearly 20 years after the alleged incident is arbitrary and illegal. It is further submitted that the charges relating to maintenance of registers and records under the Sukhibava and JSY schemes are baseless, as he was only deputed on a temporary basis and had no responsibility for maintaining such records, which were under the control of the Medical Officer and other staff. It is further submitted that initiation of disciplinary proceedings after an inordinate delay of nearly 20 years, despite his unblemished service record and while his promotion to the post of Administrative Officer is under consideration, is arbitrary, illegal, and amounts to abuse of process of law, and therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the articles of charges and contended that there are no serious allegations against the petitioner, and therefore initiation of proceedings after 20 years is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and another reported in (1990) SCC 738, wherein it was held that when there is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo, it would be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to proceed at such a belated stage. In the present case also, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of 20 years for a minor deviation relating to maintenance of Sukhibava registers, even though the petitioner was only placed as in-charge and not a permanent employee responsible for such records. The respondents have also not mentioned any valid reason for initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and others after such a long lapse of time. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that certain irregularities were committed by the petitioner along with others while working at PHC, Kankipadu. Based on a complaint made by Dr. Aruna Kumari, Medical Officer, PHC, Indupalli, Krishna District, the Director of Public Health and Family Welfare, by proceedings dated 17.03.2006, appointed the Additional DM&HO, Krishna District as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report in the year 2007, which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent, and based on the findings of the said report, the Government considered the matter and issued the impugned G.O. to conduct disciplinary proceedings. 6. On perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the complaint was made in the year 2006 and a preliminary enquiry was conducted, culminating in a report in the year 2007. However, no reasons have been mentioned in the counter affidavit explaining the delay of about 17 years in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and others. Though the learned Government Pleader relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. A. Masilamani, wherein it was held that courts or tribunals should not generally set aside departmental enquiries on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, in the present case the charges are not grave in nature and no explanation has been provided for the inordinate delay in initiating the proceedings. 7. Considering submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh and another, this Court is of the opinion that initiation of the impugned disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of nearly 20 years, without assigning any valid reason, is arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 16.03.2024 issued by the 1st respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 05.03.2026 klk 181 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 19853/2024 05.03.2026 klk