The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Aravind Kumar Kata, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetition er aDDroached this Court bv filinq the present writ oetition seekin q the oraver as under: ".....to issue a Writ, order or direction ntore parlicularly one i1 tle lature of Writ of Mandamus

a) To call for the records relating to the present charge memo issued vide proc. No, Rc.No.a1l235/2015 dated; 27-7-2078 of the 1'r respondent and set aside are quash the same on the ground of inordinate delay in initiation as well as in continuation of the proceedings, despite of cooperation from the petitioner and on that ground with holding retiral benefits of the petitioner is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, including various judicial pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court, including this Honourable Court in the subject matter as well as orders issued in GO.Ms.679 GA (Ser.C) Department dated 1-11-2008 of the Government. 2 SN,J U' P.No.4755 2023 b) And consequently direct the respondents to f(,-thvv th relea:;e ctLre retiral benefits ol the petitioner, sut I as 1'ul pensiln , Gratuity, and commutation va ue oi ::rs on ln/ith interest at the rate 24a/o eer annum fro[r .-3 date of retirement till actual payment is madr: .rnd to pass. ..." 3 The case of the D titioner. in brief. as Der the averments made bv the oetitioner in the afl'fldavi bv the Detitioner i suDDort of the Dresent wflt Detition, is as follows: i) The petitioner was initially appointed a!; a Teacher and later recruited as Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-II on 06.17.20(12, and retired from service on attaining superannuation on 30.04.2018. While working .r': the Social Welfare Uoys Hostel, Kodakandla, a surprise,::heck was conductecl by ACB officials on 25.03.2015. Basec r:n the said check, the 1't respondent issued a charge nremo dated

27.07.2018, after a delay of nearly three years ii) The'eafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the charges, and an Enquiry t)fficer was appointed, who submitted his report on'..t,+.06.2020. Despite fLrll cooperation From the petitioner, no final action v SN,J W.P.No.4765 2023 had been taken for over two and a half years after the submission of enquiry report iii) It is further the case of the petitioner that due to the pendency of these prolonged departmental proceedings, the petitioner's retirement benefits, including full pension, gratuity, and commutation, have been withheld. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present petition. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) The relevant oortion of the charqe memo vide oroceedinos Rc. No.A1l235/2O15 dated 27.O1.2O18 of the District Collector (SCDD) Waranoal (Urban) is extracted hereunder: "Sri K.Shadrach, Hostel Welfare Officer, Gr.ll, Govt. SW Boys Hostel, Kodkandia is hereby directed to submit his explanation as to why the major penalties should not be imposed against him and his explanation should reach in this officer within ( 10) days from the date of receipt of this orders and also a written in his defense. Sri K.Shadrach, Hostel Welfare officer, Gr.ll, Govt. SW Boys Hostel, Kodakandla is informed that an enquiry will be held only in respect of those article of I 4 SN,J !\/ , \o.4 765 2023 l charges are nol admitted. He should therefore specially admit or deny each Article of Charge. Sri K. Shadrach, Hostel Welfare office -, Gr.lI, Govt. SW Boys Hostel, Kodakandia is further irrformed that if he does not submit his written staterrent of defense within (10) days from the date of receit): of this order, further action will be proposed based {ln the material availa ble" B) The relevant portion of the count_el_afftdAUl filed on behalf of the resDonde nt Nos.:[ to 3is extracted hereunder: "It is respectfully submit that, the llristrict Coller:tor, Warangal (Urban) vide Letter F?c. No. AIl2:r5/2075, dt. 08-07-2020 has submiil:(ld rhe Serverd copy of Memo and Explanation sulrmitted by Sri K. Shedrach, Hostel Welfare Officer, Gr.II, (Retd), Govt. SC. Boys Hostel. Kodakandiir, Dist. Wara rgal (now Jangaon) District t(:, the Comnissioner of SC. development Depar.,:ment, TS, Hyderabad along with the remarks of the Distrir:t Collector, Warangal (Urban) in res:ect of the disciplinary case Sri K. Shedrach, Hostel Welfare Officer, Gr.II. (Retd), Govt. SC Boys Hostel, Kodakandla, Dist. Warangal (now Jargaon) District and requested vide Dv.Director of _SCDD Han umakon da Lr. o.A L/23st2 15. dated. 2.1.2025, witha reouest 7v 7 5 SN,J W.P.No.4765 2023 n e r r a e r a n Sri. K. hadrak, Retd. (ACB case), ho retired f m ovt.Service on3 o-4-20 18 as the Govt. is competent authority in respect of retired employees for taking the disciplinary action against Sri K. Shedrach, Hostel Welfare Officer, Gr,ll, (Retd), Govt. SC. Boys Hostel, Kodakandla, Dist. Warangal (now Jangaon) District and necessarv r o (A &E) Hvderabad release t r h A n f TS b n u n s DIscussroN AND c NC LUSI ON

4. Le a rnedc uns aDDear on behalf of th e r a h 27 .o1.2 o18 issuedto the Deti tion rbv the resD onde nt N .1 Derta ined toa su rDrise check co ndu cted bvACB m o h o w f B o 25 .03.2 15. The petitioner submitted his detailed explanation to the said charge memo on 20.O2.2OtB denying all the charges, however, the Enquiry Officer was appointed, and the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 04.06.2020, holding that Articles of Charge 2,3,4, and 5 / 6 5N,J t! F No.4 765 2023 are not proved/ and Articles of Charge 1,6, 7, and g as proved. The petitioner furnished a detaiied explanataon to the findings of the Enquiry Officer,s report in June 2O2O itself. However, as on date, the <lisciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitionr:r have not been conctuded, and all the retirement berrefits of the petitioner have been withheld by the respondents arbitrarily, despite the fact that the petitioner retired on 30.O4.2O18.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits t'lat, in view of the fact that the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings through issuance of the charge memo dated 27.01.2019 pertaining to an incident that occurred on 25.03.2015 and the same havinq not been concluded even as on date, the proceedings issued against the petitioner are liable to be quashed on thr: ground of inordinate delay

6. Learned Assistant Government pleader, o - the other hand, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit fi ed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to _:, contends that the Accountant General (A&E), Telangana, Hyderabad, 7 5N,l W.P.No.4765 2023 had sanctioned provisional pension to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 30.08.2018. In view of the fact that the subject issue had been referred to the Commissioner of Scheduled Castes Development Department, Telangana, Hyderabad, by duly forwarding a copy of the memo and the explanation submitted by the petitioner vide Letter R.C.No.A1l235/15 dated 08.07.2020 oF the District Collector, Warangal, with a request to issue clarification/necessary orders for conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who retired from service on 30.04.2018 and since the Government is the competent authority in respect of disciplinary proceedings against a retired employee, the matter is stated to be pending for issuance of such clarification/necessary orders for conclusion of the said disciplinary proceedings. ThereFore it is contended by the learned counsel that no orders need to be granted as sought for by the petitioner herein.

7. Few relevant Judomen ts pertaininq to cases where Co u rts intervened on the oround of delav in 8 SN,,I \//. P. No.4765 2023 concludino the dasciplinarv proceedinqs are,- extracted a nd exolain d hereunder: (a) The Aoex Court in the Judqme nt reported in 6 5SC others, in oarticular 1' India an d v.Bi lani v t paras 16 and 17 observed as nt n under: "16. So far as the second charge is concr_.rned, it has not been shown as to what were the drties of the Appellant in terms of the prescribe:l rules or oth,:rwise. Furthermore, it has not been s;irown either by :he disciplinary authority or the appellate authority as to how and in what manner the ma ntenance of ACE-8 Register by way of sheets which lvere found attached to the estimate file were not appropriate so as to arrive at the culpability or.other',r,rse of the Appellant. The appellate authority in its :rrder stated that the Appellant was not required to prepare the ACE-8 Register twice. The Appellant rnight have preoared another set of register presumrrtrly keeping in v'iew the fact that he was asked to account for the same on the basis of the materials placed on records. The Tribunal as also the Hio h Court failed t into con sideration that (J isciol ina rv oroceedinos were initiated after six vears nd it continued for a oeriod of seven vears_and, thus, a continuance thereof after such a lono time evidentlv oreiudiced to the delinquent_officer. f the 1l s 't I

17. Tn State of Madhya pradesh v. Bani Singh & Anr. [(199O) Supp. SCC 738], this Court has clearly held: " The irregularities which were the subject matter oF the enquiry is said to have taken place -1 7\ 9 SN,J W.P.No.4755 2023 between the years 7975-77.It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 7977 tnere was doubt about the involvement of the oFficer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There satisfacto rv for the inordinat delav in exolanatio issuino the charqe memo and we are also that it will be unfai to oermit of the vie the deDart ental enouirv to be oroceeded with at this staqe," n (b) The Aoex Cou rt rn the Judoment re Dorted i n (1998) 4 SCC 154 in State f A.P. v N.Radha ishan. in pa rticu la r at Dara 18 observed as under: The High Court quashed the memo of charges on the principal ground of delay of five and a half years in serving the memo of charges, for which there was no acceptable explanation. This Court examined the factual position as to how the delay occurred and if Goyal had been prejudiced in any way on account oF delay. This Court relied on the Principles laid down in A.r. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1992 (1) SCC 225), and said, that though that case pertained to criminal prosecution the principles enunciated therein were broadly applicable to the pleas of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as well. ReFerring to decision in A.R. Antulay case this Court said:- ao r aoh 85 o the i udome t.t hi s "In oa Court men ioned the DroDositions emerqrnq from the several decisions considered in and rrr r+alrr + h i +h court has toba n ce and weioh the severa I bse :rrad + 11 h a T 10 5N,J w t,. No.4765 2023 o se wh relev nt facto rs - bal a ncin I L test or balancino orocess - and deterr Line in each tri th th r d been denied in a qiven c se." It ha also been held that. ord ina rilv sDeal<ino, where the court comes to the conclusio,n tha riqht to soeedv trial of the accuse<I has been infrin qed, the c arqes, or he co nviction, as the case mav be, will be ouashed. At the same time, it has been observecl that is not the only course open to the cortrt and that in a given case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances may be such that quashing the proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a (:ase, it has been observed, it is open to flre court to make such other appropriate order as it finds just and equitable in the circumstance of the case." In that case this Court said that it was more appropriate and in interest of justice as well as in the interrest of administration that inquiry which has proceeded to a large extent be allc wed to be completed. At the same time the Court (jirected that Goyal should be considered forthwith fcr promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pend,:ncy of the inquiry, if he is found fit for promotion. (c) The Aoex Court in the Judqment reDo ed in dT .N. tn Da rticular atD ras l. 1 and t2 (200s)6s cc 536 in P.V. ahadevan \t Ho sino Board, ob erved as und er: "Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed furffer with the v 11 5N,J W,P.No.4765 2023 departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. Ilrg Drotracted d isciolina rv qover ment emD ovee shoul d. therefor e. be enoutr aoainsta r qovernm ent e olovee but in oublic interes and the interests of insoirino confide ce in also i m staqe, it is necessarv to draw the curtain and to h di .l n n due to the orotracted disciolinarv oroceedinos would be muc more t an the o nishment. For a Droc eedinqs the aD oella nt hould otbem ade to suffer. 12. We. therefore, have no hesit on to uash the charqe m emo rssued a ainst the aooel! a nt. The aooea! is allowed. The aooellant will be a c t r n r t onths from this date. No costs. Il b n law. with in three (d) Div nBe hof hc rto Telanoana and Andhra Judi atu re, Hvd rabad in the Judq ment reDorted in 20L6 (4) ALD Pradesh 320 (DB) in State of Telanqana and othe v L.Ga lanna and a nother o d as follows: 1,2 SN,J v.'. P. No.4 765 202 3 I l "2 In the manner the writ petition is proposed to be disposed of, it is not necessu.y to ..?.r. io ther facts in detail. It will suffice to obserre inat respondent No.1, who was working as As:;istant B-C.. Welfare Officer, was subjected to a dis,:iplinary proceeding. R charge mem,l yys5 issued on 24.t0.2003, unOei *niin," i;;, charges were framed against responaeni ruo.r. Sjmilar proceedings weie initiated uguinrt fow other emptoyees. Not being satisfiei *ir n it* explanation, dated L3.12.2003, o*"..j -Oy resoondent No.1, an enquiry officer was appointed and an enquiry was held. il" enquiry officer submitted his repor[ on 27.72.2004, hotding that charge f,fl. r" *L proved, charge No.2 was partly provecl and charge Nos.3 and 4 were not proved a(tainst respondent No.1. A 4 I n n u e P.V. d din s, in w hich n d d the vears 2002-O3. 4. On a careful consideration of the respective subnrissions of the learned counsel rLi"tn" parties, we are of the opinion tnat in ine absence of any explanation whatsoevei offeieO -' by the petitioners for their failure to .on.ir,t-" disciplinary proceedings for a decade, in"':.tio laid down by the -Supreme Court in the 'OV abovementioned cases was righfly uppii",r v l 13 SN,.J W.P.No.4755 2023 the Tribunal proceedings, " tn quashing the disciplinary (e) The Apex Court in its Judqment dated 01.08.2 014 in Civil Aooeal No.7113 ot 2OL4 (a risinq out of sLP (C) No.25015 of 2011). i D.D.Tewa ri (D) throuoh LRs v Utta r Harvana Bi ii Vitran N am Ltd and.others clearly observed that pension and gratuity are o no longer any bounty to be distributed by the Government to its employees on their retirement, but, have become, under the decisions of this Court, valuable rights and property in their hands and any culpable delay in setUement and disbursement thereof must be dealt with the penalty of payment oF interest at the current market rate till actual payment to the employees. The said legal principle laid down by this Court still holds good in so far as awarding the interest on the delayed payments to the appellant is concerned.

8. Thi sCourt ooines that the oetitio ner retired emolove who suoerannu ted on 3O.O4.2O 18, is still o er hi rs r 1r m nt benefi f Jul 14 SN,J \A'. P. N0.4 765 2023 oeti tioner s uld not be ma de to suffer furth er ao nv and hardshio at this lenoth of time.

9. Taking into considerataon the fact as borne on record that the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner here:in through issuance of charge memo dated 27.01.20111 pertaining to an incident that occurred on 25.03.2015 and the same having not been conctuded even as on date this Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition. 1O. Takino into consideration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services-Ilf appearing on behalf of the respondents, .7, 15 S N,J W.P,No.4765 2023 (c) The Judgments of this Court dated 25.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.14566 ot 2019 reported in 2024 (1) ALD 387, (d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 (referred to and extracted above), (e) The contents of the charge memo vide proceedings Rc.No.A1l235/2OL5 dated 27.OL.ZOLA issued by the District Collector (SCDD), Waranga! (Urban), admittedly indicate that the primary basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was the surprise check conducted at the Social Welfare Boys Hostel, Kodakandlar oh

25.03.2015. (f) The fact as borne on record that the explanation furnished by the petitioner to the enquiry report dated 04.06.2020 was submitted in June 2O2O itself; however, the same has not been considered and no appropriate orders have been passed even as on date. f ./ 76 SN,J W,P.No.4755 2023 (S) The fact that the respondents failed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable period though the petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2018 and the charge memo issued to the petitioner is dated 27.Ot.2OLtt. (h) The observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the various judgments referred to and extracted above and again enlisted below I (a) (2006) s sCc 88 (b) (19e0) Supp; SCC 738 o (1998) 4 SCC 1s4 (d) (2oos) 5 scc 636 (e) 2016 (4) ALD 32o (DB) (f) Civil Appeal No. 7113 ot ZO1.4 arising out of SLP @ No. 25015 of 2011 (j) In the light of discussion and corrctusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 9 of the present Judgment, The writ petition is allowed. Duly l:aking into consideration the observations of the Ape x Court in the various Judgments referred to and extracted 1 I 7 ).7 SN,J W. P, No.4755 2023 above and the fact as borne on record that the charge memo was issued on 27.OL.2O18 and the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded even as on date t.e. 31.07.2025, the imouqned Droceedinos of the t(u an), vide t23512015 ated 27.OL .2018, is set aside on conclu dinq the trict Collecto r (sc DD), Rc. No.A1 inordinate dela ara n Dis nd of the o rou r u m h

27. .20L h n retireme t ben efits due to the Deti as oer t n he oetiti ner's leqal entitle ment, within a o m roner r,e f d fou 4 h e c t coov of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs, Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD.lsMAlL / oeP"ufr''Iedrbinan / G SECTION OFFICER oneFairc"pytiF:T"#[:J"r$[r.r-y:J'Fi:"r"T,tt^LLTNANDA To, I 2 The District Collector' (SW) Warangal (Urban) Warangal District' The Deputy Director of Social Welfare Warangal' (Urban) Warangal District 3 4 q 6 7 o The Princip,al Secretary, Social Welfare Department' l;ecretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana '1 1 LR Copies The Under l3ecretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, " ustice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, L brary' High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA, Advocate IOPU ]l Two ccs to GP FOR SERVICES-|||, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUT] \ I BSR GJ Two CD Copies d r' HIGH COURT DATED: 3110712025 ) ORDER WP.No.4765 of 2023 / ,:) i:\C( 'Y o \ T_.r.\ ai l'\ ' :i v ;!ili .(,.. , -$,s ")' ; t..l + ti) It ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 'r