Hari v. 1. State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. the High Court may be pleased to declare the proceedings bearing Roc.No.F l/1 212006. dated 28-04- 2006 and No.C1l397/2016-17, dated 1O-11-2016 of the 3'd Respondent as illegal. arbitrary, and unjustified and violative of Article 14. 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia by issuing appropriate writ. order or direction more particularly in the nature of [Vlandamus and consequently direct the 3'd Respondent to pay all the retirement benefits to the petitioner forthwith with interest @12% p.a. including the salary from 28-04-2006 till the date of his superannuation and service pension thereafter ;, l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 53703 OF 20'16) 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 3rd respondent to pay provisional pension to the petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(W PMP. NO: 53704 OF 2016) 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 suspend the proceedings bearing Roc.No.F111212006, dated 28-04-2006 and No.C1l397/2016-17, dated 10-11-2016 of the 3rd Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. RAMA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: GP FOR SERVICES I /GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI RAMESH CHILLA, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY The Court made the following: ORDER ---------- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.435 17 of 2016 OFIDER: Heard Sri K. Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for the, learned Assistant Government Pleader for MA & UD and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-l on behalf of the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Public Health Worker on 01.08.1977 in respondent No.3-Municipality; while so, he fell ill because of his nature of duties and requested the Sanitary Inspector for grant of leave during July, 2OO4 and after recovery, a-fter 15 days, petitioner reported for duty before the Sanitary Inspector but he was not allowed to attend his duties. It is further submitted that the Sanitary Inspector appears to have reported on 06.01.2006 that petitioner is absenting from duty from 29.O7.2O04 and basing on the memo issued by respondent No.3 dated 08.01.2006, petitioner submitted explanation on 31.01.2O06 itself and dissatislied, respondent No.3 issued the initial charge memo dated 28.04.2006 framing two charges against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted explanation to the charge memo on 26.05.2006 and on the very same day, when the petitioner personally met the respondent No.3 and explained the factual position, later permitted I 2 him to join dugr pending finalization of disciplinary action, but the Sanitary Inspector for the reasons best known him, did not allow him join duty. It is further contended that on receipt of explanation, respondent No.3, by order dated O5.O2.2OO7 issued show cause notice stating that explanation of petitioner is not satisfactory and asking the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him forgetting the fact that disciplinary proceedings have already been initiate d on 28.04.2006 itself by issuing charge memo and immediately the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the show cause notice on 2O.O2.2OO7 again another notice was issued to petitioner asking him to submit Medical ald Fitness Certificate for the absent period for taking further action in the matter and accordingly, petitioner has submitted a Medical and Fitness Certificate along with his representation dated 2O.O2.2OO7, yet he was not allowed to attend g. It is further submitted that thereafter nothing has happened in respect of the charges framed against petitioner nor he was allowed to attend duty and not paid salary also. The petitioner being uneducated public health worker is not aware of any technicalities and procedures to be followed, and he had been approaching the ) I 3 authorities for justice and also submitted a representation on 2B.O9.2O|O but all his efforts went in vain. In the meanwhile, petitioner attained the age of superannuhtion. It is further averred that with no option and as advised, he submitted representation dated 16.05.20 16 to respondent No.3 stating that in view of inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the same may kindly be dropped and service benefits may kindly be released immediately and the result is the second impugned charge memo on the very same charges. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 issued a charge memo dated 28.04.2006 and petitioner has already submitted his explanation to respondent No.3 and petitioner could have been allowed to join duty but was not allowed to do so which clearly shows the arbitrary action on the part of respondent No.3 since petitioner was not suspended from the service but was given a charge memo only and even after issuing charge memo and receiving explanation from petitioner, nothing has happened till he submitted representation dated 16.05.2016 whereupon they realized their mistake of not concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and obtained another report dated 01.11.2016 and the charges in both the charge memos is one and the same, hence the second charge memo dated 10.1 1.2016 is unsustainable. It is \ 4 further averred that in vierv of the sequence of events explained hereinabove, il is clear that it is the respondent No.3 who is responsible for not concluding disciplinary proceedings initiated way back in 2O06 ancl it is not petitioner who delayed the conclusion of the same. It is pertinent to mention here that no enquiry officer is appointed till date, therefore, nothing could be attributed to him for not concluding the proceedings and the nature of post held by petitioner itsell' suggests that it is not petitioner rvho delayed the proceedings but sheer inaction on the part of respondent No.3 and had the disciplinary proceedings been continued, they could have been ended long back and petitioner would have taken appropriate steps, in the event of any punishment imposed against him, therefore the disciplinaq, proceedings initiated against petitioner are liable to be set aside for inordinate delay in concluding the same and thus I prayed to allow the present writ petition. +. On perusal of the record, it is disclosed that except issuing charge memo dated 2A.04.2006, petitioner was not suspended from service nor he was allowed to discharge his duties, therefore, it is deemed that he is in service till he attained the age of superannuation. It is also clear that on the charge memo dated

28.O4.2006 at the bottom of the page, respondent No.3 on

26.05.2006 endorsed that petitioner is permitted to join duty pending finalization of disciplinar5r action, on humanitarian grounds. Therefore, it is made clear that the petitioner has been issued a charge memo but was not suspended from his service and therefore petitioner is entitled for retirement benefrts.

5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed and respondent No.3 is directed to pay all the retirement benefits to the petitioner with interest @ 72o/o per annum including the salary from 28.04.2006 till the date of his superannuation and service within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if a.ry(nrff stand closecl. I \ SD/. U.SUDHA, ANT REGISTRAR SI //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER To, 1

4. c 6 7 I ni#$*uffi*q,",.d*",, :H, [l]?e"ft '$*ff#ffi ':fi [{ir*L[Liffi ilflidHP^i#i'uattr" Two CD CoPies BM TKS p HIGH COURT DATED:1010712025 ORDER WP.No.4351V ot 2016 i{A 16- Ll i Co t t 6 29 0[I 2m PAT C r tii.r) ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS