High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the impugned Memo.No. 7334/CPRandRElEZ.Yigt}B, dated 24-10-2O09 issued by the 1st respondent and quash or selaside the same in view of delay and latches in concluding the disciplinary proceedings for the last over 5 112 years l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP(TR). NO: 346 OF 20171 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 respondents not to proceed further action pursuant to the Enquiry report by suspending the operation of the Memo No.24647Nig.lllA2l2O08, daled 13-5-2016 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the O.A. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A. PHANI BHUSHAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES ll .l} The Court made the following: OROER 7 a THE HONOIJRAI}LE SMT. JUSTICE, T. MADHAVI I)EVI WRII. l'ETITION (TR) No.3469 oF 20r 7 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.A.No, 1594 of 2015 befbre the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") challenging the charge memo No. 7334/CPR&RE/E2.\'iel08 dared

24.10.2009 issued by respondent No. I and to ser aside the same and to I pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the O.A.No .1594 of 2015 are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior AsSistant-cum-Bill Collector in the year 1979 and he was promoted to various posts. It is submitted that while the petitioner was working as the Divisional Panchayat Ol'tlcer, a charge memo dated 24.10.2009 was issued to him, framing the charge that he has failed (i) to take any action in stopping the construction ol unauthorized/deviated portions of the building in Nizampet Gram Panchayat, which falls under FfLIDA, now HMDA; (ii) to exercise supervision and control over the Extension Officer (PR &RD) and Panchayat Secretaries within the division; and (iii) to provide guidance ro the Gram panchayats. It is submitted that while he was rvorking as the District panchayat Officer, Rangareddy wptr _3469 *2017 't 2 District, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2013 and that he has submitted a detailed explanation to the said charge memo on 23.01.201A denying the charges against him and requested to stop further action in the matter. It is further submitted that an E,nquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry in the matter and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 22.11.2013 and the enquiry was postponed to 29.01.2014 and subsequently, the enquiry was not concluded. In the meantime, one of the officers, S.M.G. Basha, Divisional panchayat Officer, against whom similar proceedings were initiated . and the said proceedings were dropped pursuant to his approaching the Tribunal for conclusion of the proceedings against him. The Tribunal had directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and accordingly, the Govemment has taken a decision to drop the proceedings. lt is submitted that the petitioner has brought the above factum to the notice of the Enquiry Olficer and yet the Enquiry Officer has proceeded with the enquiry and held rhe charge against the petitioner as proved subsequent to the filing of O.A. i.e., in the year

2015. Challenging the charge memo dated 24.10.2009, the petitioner filed O.A.No. I 594 of 2Ol5 before the Tribunal. After completion of ,.) 3 wptr 3469_2017 the enquiry and submission of the enquiry report, the petitioner has filed M.A.No.l432 of 2016 in O.A.No 1594 of 2015 before the Tribunal to take -nquiry report dated 13.05.2016 on record. After the abolition of the l'ribunal, the matter has been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.(TR)No.3469 ol20l7.

3. The respondents have not filed any counter affidavit thereafter till 06.01.2025.

4. Leamed counsel fbr the petitioner submined that the incidents for which the alleged charges have been framed against the' petitioner pertain to the 1'ear 2004, and the charge memo was issued in the year 2009 and the enquiry was concluded in the year 2016 and yet no final orders have been passed by the authorities till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on retirement ol the petitioner, he was given retirement benefits but the pay revision has not been extended. The petitioner is challenging the action ol the respondents in not passing an;- orders on grounds of delay as well as discrimination. Leamed counsel submitted that when in the case of co-Slelinquent employee, the charges have been dropped, sirnilar trealment should have been given to the petitioner as wc'll- Learned -3469 -2017 4 counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has also submitted his explanation to the enquiry report, but thereafter, no action has been taken by the authorities. Leamed counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of D.Srinivos v' Governmenl of A.P., Transport, Roads and Buildings (Vig'I) Dept' and otherst in support of his contentions.

5. Leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-ll, however, relied upon the averrnents in counter affidavit filed by respondent No'I and also the enclosures therewith. This Court finds that in the counter affidavit, except for mentioning the charges and also reciting as to the reasons for delay in conducting the enquiry, no reasons are given as to why differential treatment has been given to the petitioner herein and why the charges were dropped in the case of co-delinquent officer Basha, but not in the case olthe petitioner. There is also no reference to any order passed by the disciplinary authorities after the enquiry report has been submitted. I I ' zo13 (4) ALr 1 (D.8.) wptr_3459_2017 5

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has itself issued G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01'11.2008 directing the authorities to conclude the departmental enquires within three months in simple cases and within six months in complex cases' [n this case, it is clear that the charge memo itself was issued with a delay of five years and the enquiry was conducted thereafter after seven years and in spite of the lapsc of nearly nine years, no orders have been passed by the authorities. Therefore, it is a clear case of delay in taking any action. Even on going through the charge memo' this Coun finds that there is no act of positive misconduct by the petitioner and the allegation is of negligence in taking action against the unauthorized constructions. l'his Court also finds that a similar charge has been made against the three other officers and one ol the olficers has approached the Tribunal and pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal. the respondents could not conclude the disciplinary proceedings and therefore, they have chosen to drop the proceedings. Wher.r the charges are similar and the alleged misconduct is also similar, the respondents cannot adopt separate yardstick for the petitioner' It is also noted that the Enquiry Officer, in response to the petitioner's t t wpt. _3469 _2077 6 submissions that the charges in the case of one of the delinquent officer have been dropped, has observed that the petitioner also ought to have approached the Tribunal. This attitude of the Enquiry Officer is not appreciated and speaks volumes about his apathy to the ptight of the petitioner. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the opinion that the charges against the petitioner also need to be dropped. In view of the afbresaid delay as well as thc act of discrimination, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders by dropping the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and granting consequential benefits to the petitioner. The order shall be passed within a period of three (03) months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. 'fhere shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. To, SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER "Canchayat Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderbbad. 500 029 Rai and Rural Development Department' l.TheCommissionerforPanchayatRajAndRuralEmployment,Stateof Telangana, HYderabad-29' , The Princioal Secretary, - 3. il;"ic i;'sRl.'Al PHAN] sHusFlRr'I, Advocate. [o.PUc] ;. i;; d6ri"-GC ron sEiiVicE5 u ,Hisn court ror the state or Telansana at 5. Two CD CoPies BM q. u5 Hyderabad [OUT] HIGH COURT DATE D :23 lU '2A25 ORDER WP(TR).No.3469 of 2017 cn 1HE S 14 14: ( e o O 1+ r[B 2025 \t*"k":-/ \ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION (TR) WITHOUT COSTS Bcpd(4 W 6ae6 --=