NBK, in Premnath Bali v. Registrar, High coiyrt of Delhit, whereinit was held as follows

Petition under section 1sl 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 to consider the case of the petitionr:r for promotion to the post of Regional rransport officer with effect from the dale it was due, without reference to charge sheet in Memo No B216tv3t2oo2 dabd 10-09-2007 issued by the Respondent 2, pending disposal of the above Wp. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents: cp FOR SERVICES I W.P.No.l8110 OF 2019 Between: Y. Kondala Rao, S/o Late.sri y. Simhacharam, aged 5s years, Motor Vehicres lnspector, Sircilla Rajanna District, Sircilla 505301 ' -- AND uepanment, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022 1 I!:^5119_oJ Telangana., llp by its princirlat Secretary, Tra rsport, R and B Z ]lrf Transport Commissioner, Government of Telangana State, Hyderabad_ r 500 004. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the ri,]h court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly or e in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS declaring the continuance of proceedings in charge sheet in Memo No 117N3N2t2016-1 dated 15-05-2019 issued by th-. Respondent No. 2 and also Memo No.283\lc3t2o19 dated 07-0g-2019, is arlritrary, iltegal and violative of Aft. 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia thereby quashing the same direct- his promotion for the post of the Regional rransport officer with all consequential and attendant benefits with effect from the date of my juniors promotion. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Regional Transport Officer with effect ifrom the date it was due and without reference to Charge Sheet in Memo No 1t17lV3lV2l2O16-1 dated 15-05-2019 issued by the Respondent No. 2 and also Mpmo No.28381C312019 dated 07-08- 2019 pending disposal of the above WP. lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, itfre Hlgh Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to suspend the chargel Memo No 1171V3N212016-1 dated 15-05-2019 issued by the Respondent 2 pPnding disposal of the above Vwrit petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 1 wp 11a09 & 18110 2019 NB(, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEI]MAPAKA WRIT PETITION Nos.11809 and 18110 of 2019 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the continuation ofproceedings against the charges framed against him vide Charge Memos date,l 10.09.2007, and

15.05.2019. The charge under Charge N{emo dated 10.09.2007 is that the petitioner has not filed Annual Property Retums from I 99 8 to 2002 thereby he violated the Conduct Rules. The charges under Charge Memo dated

15.05.2019 are that the ACB authorities conducted a s.urprise check on

04.01.2016 and the petitioner is alleged to have been ccll,:cting "mamools" (illegal amounts) of Rs. 100, Rs.200 etc., through r\gents by using codenames like BM (for B.Murali), V (for Venkatesarn), TR (for T.Ravi) etc., and later processing their applications without hirLdlance. The charge memos were issued by respondent No. 2 -- Transport Corlrnissioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he is in the top of the list ancl he is certain about consideration of his candidature for promotion, but the authorities have kept the proceedings pending for more than a decade in WP Irro.,l 1809 of 2019, and three and a half years in WP No. 1 8 I l0 of 2019, arrd are now bringing up the same after such a long delay only to deny the br:n,:fit of promotion, and therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to b,: quashed on the ground ofdelay and laches.

2. Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, leamed counsel for the petitioner, and the leamed Govemment Pleader for Services-I. Perused the record. Leamed counsbl for the petitioner, while making srrbmissions in line

3. with the writ affidavit, relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ./ 2 wp 11809 & 18110 2019 NBK, ] in Premnath Bali vs. Registrar, High coiyrt of Delhit, whereinit was held as follows: " 26. Time and again, this Court has entphasized rhat it is the duty of rhe cmployer to ensure thot the depdrtmentyal enquiry initiared against the clelinquent employee is concluded withln the shortest possible time by taking priorit)t measures. In cases whenp the delinquent is placed under suspcnsion during the pendency o/ sucll inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative.for the employer to ens1re that lhe inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights ofthe delinquent Qmployee. 28 Keeping these.factors in mind, we aie r.,f the consiclered opinion that every employer (whether State or privafu) must make sincere eruleavors to conclude the tlepartmental inquiry ploceedings initiated against the delinquent emplo.t,ee within a reasonabli time by giving priority to such proceedings and usfar as possible it shotqld be completedwithin 6 months as an outer limit. tlhere it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to certain unuvoidable causes arisirlg in the proceedings within the time Jrame then efforts should be made fo conclude within a reasonably exlended period depending upon the caule ond nature of inquiry but not mor<' lhan d vcar "

4. Leamed Government pleader, baped on the writtgn instructions placed on file, essentially contends that the Charge Memo dated lO.Og.2007 was issued because the petitioner commritted a graye irregularity by not submitting the Annual Property Return S[atements while on deputation at the check Post, Bhoraj of Adilabad District, from 17 .1 r .1998 to 30.05 .2002; thus, he violated the A.P.c.S. (conduct) [ules, r964. It is contended that Dr. Sundar Vadi was initially appointed lLs the Enquiry Officer, and upon his allocation to the State of Andhra pradpsh (following the bifurcation of the composite State of Andhra pradesh intd Telangana and Andhra pradesh), M. Chandrasekhar Goud, Deputy Transpo!:t Commissioner, was appointed \L2o1s (16) scc 415 3 wp 11a09 & 18110_2019 NBK,I as Enquiry Ofhcer vide Proceedings dated 17.06.21)15. However, he resigned from Govemment Service. Thereafter, Dr. Puppala Srinivas, Deputy Transport Commissioner, was appointed as ErLquiry Officer vide Proceedings dated 30.09.2019. Dr. Puppala Srinivas srLbmitted a letter stating that B. Mohan, Inspector of ACB, Karimnagar 'tange, who was appointed as Presenting Officer, had been transferre,J and therefore requested for his replacement. Consequently, Bommal3ani Sunil Kumar, Inspector, ACB, Adilabad, was appointed in place of B. Mohan vide Proceedings dated22.06.2021. The Enquiry Officer, alter completing the enquiry, held the charges as "proved" vide letter dated C'4.01.2023. With regard to charges of collecting "mamools" (itlegal monies) in the year 2016, the enquiry is stated to have been "completed" and tlLe Enquiry Officer submitted Report on 22.05.2024.

4.1 Learned Govemment Pleader relies on thr: .iudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Akhilesh Jha2 and contends that the delay in conducting a disciplinary e,rquiry does not automatically vitiate the proceedings, and that prej uEice must be demonstrated and carurot be presumed merely due to the pzrssage of time.

4.2 It is also contended that the Enquiry Officer.has completed he enquiry against the charges and the Disciplinary authority has forwarded the original file to the Govemment for advice liom the ,\rlvisory Body in vigilance matters. (As per the scheme of the Vigilance Clo:nmissioner vide U.O. Note No. 235lSpl.B/2001-1G.A(Spl.B) Dept. dated /6.07.2001), the enquiry report has to be submitted to the Vigilance Commissioner through the Government for obtaining the Vigilance Commissione -'s advice. After 'z(2021) 12 scc 460 \ 4 wp 11809 & 16110_.2ori NBK, ] taking the advice of the Advisory Body on the acceptance or otherwise of the enquiry report., the Enquiry Repoft will be communicated to the delinquent employee and necessary actiop will be taken.

5. Having considered the respective srlbmissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the judgment in Akllilesh Jha (supra) relates to a case where the charge sheet was issued to the flelinquent (i.e., Superintendent of Police Mr. Akhilesh Jha), in rhe year 2016, alleging that despite insrructions from the Inspector General of Police to disband the ..Gunda delinquent had constituted,, supervised, qnd operated the .,Gunda Squad',. When the Hon'ble High Court affirmed fhe Tribunal,s order quashing the disciplinary proceedings, the Ciovemmenit filed appeal before the Hon'ble Squad,,' the Supreme Court, and the Suprcme Court, by order dated 06.09.2021,he\d that the charges were neither vague nor anlbiguous, and that the unexplained delay of nearly two years in initiating {isciplinary proceedings did not, without demonstrated prejudice, vitiate thg enquiry, Therefore, the Hon,ble Supreme Court directed the restoration a$d expeditious completion of the disciplinary proceedings in the said case. t

6. Whereas, in the instant case, the allqgations against the petitioner are that he did not file Annual Property Returys during 1998 to 2002; and that he collected Rs. 100, Rs.200 extra per application through various Agents, for expeditious and unhindered completioh of their work. Admittedly, the enquiry officer submitted a report in the prqperty retums matter in 2023, and in the matter of collection of illegal monibs in 2024. The allegations date back to the years 2007, and 2016 respectiveiy. The disciplinary authority has not taken a decision in the matters yet, and purportedly awaiting the advice of Ylgilance Deparlment, and therefore theiproceedings are still pending. 5 wp 11809 & 18110_2019 NBI ]

7. The writ petitions are filed in 2(t19. Considering the nature of the violations/offences, the judgment in Akltilesh Jha (xryra\ is not applicable to the case at hand. On the contrary, this Court is of the view that the judgment in Premnath^Bali (supra), which prescribes a lezrsonable time limit of six months or a reasonable extension of time based or circumstances, is applicable to the case at hand, even assuming there was some delay on the part of the authorities in conducting the enquiry.

8. Furlher, in W.P.(TR) No.3030 of 2017 filed by on: Mr. K. Santhosh Reddy, a similarly placed individual included with thc petitioner herein in the Charge Memo dated 10.09.2007, this Court has allo.wt'd the writ petition by Order dated, 17.02.2024. Given the nature of clLarges, the delay is inordinate, even considering the circumstances beinri ,:anvassed for the delay. In that view of the matter, the impugned procee<lirgs are liable to be quashed and the writ petitions deserve to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. No coits. Miscellaneous petitions, ifany, pending shall stand closed ,+ SDI. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Transport, R and B Department Secretariat,State of Telangana, Hyderabad - 50OO22

2. The Transport commissioner, Government of Telangantr state, Hyderabad- 500 004.

3. One CC to SRI J.SUDHEER, Advocate. [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court for thr; f]tate of Telangana' 5 Two CD Copies. BSK \cv pvr 1/ I CC TODAY .) c ) (2,'u't';,t'b}.o.. tii,i '1..i\ I r srP ?$6 i.li .: ,,/ rYr,,, - L.,t: - ,: *.i,r-r-.r.. .;ir; -. .-:_-:,. ._ :-..:, . "i<-.i' HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.11809 AND 18110 of 2019 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a @