P.V.Mahadevan v. D.Tamil Nadu Housing Br'rarda

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WVMPfiR). NO: 443 OF 20171 Between:

1. The Govemment of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal, Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, A.P.Hyderabad.-22

2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad,

3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District ...PETITION ERS/RESPONDENTS AND K. Narayana Reddy, Sio. Late Ram Reddy, Aged about 57 years, working as Deputy Tahsildar, O/o. Revenue Divisional Officer, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy, R/o. MIG 42, Ramayaguda Road Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy Dishict ...RESPONDEN T/PETITIONER 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 vacate the interim orders granted in OA.No.259012014 dated: 15-O4-2014. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. LINGA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THD HONOURABLE SMT.IUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI w.P(TRl.No. l9a3 of 2Ol7 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the charge Memo issued in Proceedings No ,{3/139912013 dated 16.04.2013 by the 3.d respondent and thereby depriving the petitioner, promotion to the post of Tahsildar as illegal, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the time limit stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.679, dated O1.11.2008 and Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Ruies .1991, for completion of discipiinary proceedings and consequently to hold that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Tahsildar with all consequential benehts and to pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice.

2. Brief facts leading to the liling of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Assistant w.e.f. 1 1.08.1982 and was promoted as Senior Assistant during the year 1989. While working as such, the petitioner was posted to work as Senior Assistant in the Office of the Special Grade Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional 2 TMD,J sr.P('tr).Nt. 1943 oJ 2017 Ofhcer, Chevella Division in the months of June, 2OO7. Subsequenl l'",, he was promoted and appointed a,; Deputy Tahsildar and t,as posted to work rn the office of tl e Special Offucer & Cornpetent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hvderabad, w.e.f . 17 .0('.201 1 and he was fully eligibie and qurrlilied for promotion .o the post of Tahsildar basing on his seniority. However, vide impugned Charge Memo dated 16.04.:1013, the petitioner arcng with one another were placed under strspension alleging that they are responsible for misplacement of a file bearing No.tll 1O0O/2O1O, pertaining to the RDO, Che,vella and that the sai,'l fact has come to notice upon filing of W.I,.No.4770 of 2013 by one Smt. Yousuf Begum. The petitioner r:xplained that ever sir-rce his appointment as Deputy Tahsilclar w.e.f.

77.06.2011, he had no occasion to deal with the sairL file and even during his tenure as Senior Assistant in the offrce of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, there was no ent.rustmenr of such file to the petitioner. On the g round of pendency of rlisciplinary proceedings against him, the retitioner was not prcmoted and he retired from service on atta ining the age of superannuation on 30.O6.2014. In the meant.ime, the petitioner har.l filed O.A.No.3257 of 2Ol3 and the Tribrrnal was pleased to rlispose of the said O.A., by an ord:rr dated 3 TMD,J w,4m.No, 1983 ot2017

30.04.20i3, directing the petitioner to exhaust alternative remedy of appeal and subsequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 09.10.2O13 and the petitioner submitted his explanation delying allegations leveled against him in the Charge Memo. The disciplinary proceedings were not concluded and in the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 3O.06.2014. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner was being paid only the provisionai pension and till the date of hearing of this writ petition, the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded. It is submitted that in the meantime, the disciplinary proceedings against the co- delinquent Sri.Y.Ramakrishna have been dropped. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings against the petitioner ought to have been dropped and the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion in accordance with the interim order granted by the Tribunat in O.A.No.259O of 2074, which is re-numbered as W.P(TR).No.1983 of 2Ol7 on abolition of Tribunal and on transfer of O.A., to the High Court. He is therefore seeking a direction to close the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and to pay the \_ --/ 4 TMD'J w,4trl.No t983 ol2o,7 petitioner full pension with interest @ 12% along v ith the consequential benefits of promotion to the post of Tahsilr [ar'

3. I:r support of his contentions, he filed aclditional material pap( rs and further he relied upon the f'lllowing decisions:

1. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs' Bani Singh and Anotherl;

2. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs' N'Radhakishan2; 3. State of Punjab and Others Vs' Chaman Lal (ioyal3;

4. P.V.Mahadevan Vs. D.Tamil Nadu Housing Br'rarda;

5. M.V.Bijlani Vs. Union of India and Otherss; 6. Copy of Order in W.P'No'17569 of 2O2O, Dt.LL.L2.2020. 4 . l;:arne d Government Pleader for Services on the other hand, -eliecl upon the averments made in the counter affidavit anc submitted that an enquiry was initiated into the charges levr:1cd against the petitioner and the disciplinary proceedings .Lre yet to be concluded. It is submitted that the inquiry reporr- dated O1.O7.2023 was furnished to the petitioner r 1990 SCC Onhn,rio ?+67 2 (19981 4 scc ls+ 3 (199s) 2 sCC s7 ) a &los) 6 scc ()3.t s 1zo0q s scc as 5 IMD,J w.4rr).No. 79e3 oJ 2017 and the petitioner has also submitted his explanation and the same was submitted to the Government on 20.11.2024 for taking further necessary action on the application of the petitioner for sanction of full pension and that the same is pending at the Government level and he therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services relied upon the letter i.e., Lr.No.A3/ 1399 12013, dated 17.72.2024 ar'd also on the Memo i.e., Memo No.A3 13087 12023, dated O2.O1.2024. He further relied upon the judgment of the Honble Suprerne Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Akhilesh Jha and Another6.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record this Court hnds that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuance of charge memo daLed 16.04.2O13. The G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.20O8, was issued by the Government directing the respondent authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months in simple cases and within a period of six months in complicated matters. In this case, in spite of lapse of more than {: (2021) 12 scc 460 6 TUD,J w.qTt).No 1983 of 2017 n n ten years af1 e r issuance of charge memo, after the retir ement of the petitioner from service, the respondents have not crtncluded the disciplinary proceedings. In view of the inordinate delay in the conclusi:n of the disciplinary proceedings, the prcrceedings are liable to be dropped. Further in the case of co dr:linquent Mr.Y. Ramakr shna, the respondents have chosen to lrop the proceedings. The respondents have not given aly re asonable cause for nol dropping the proceedings against the petirioner except statrrrg that an enquiry was conducted rlnd the Government is yet to take a decision. The Government cannot be permittecl t o sit on a fi1e for an inhnite period for taking a decision. Th,:refore, the proceedings against the petiticner are deeme d to h zrve been dropped, This view is supporte:l by the dccisions rclicd upon by the learned counsel for the pttitioner. The decisions relied upon by the learned government pieader are distinguis hable on facts.

7. lr. view of the same, the Charge Merro dated

16.04.2013 is directed to be dropped and the respondents are directed to nrake the payment of balance of the pensic,n to the petitioner exlr:ditiously i.e., within a period of three (3) months from the datc of receipt of a copy of this order and if the same is I I I I I i I 7 TIID,J W.qm.No. 19a3 oJ 2017 not paid within the said period, then balance pension shall carry a simple interest @ 8% per annum from the date of expiry of three months till the date of payment. As regards the notional promotion to the post of Tahsildar, this Court finds that such a direction cannot be given after the retirement of the petitioner as the promotion is subject to DpC proceedings ald such DpC cannot be hold subsequent to the date of retirement. B. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 9 . Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. T]RUMALA DEVI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Principal, Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, T-S' Hvderabad. Government of Telangana-22 r6e bnief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad, The District Collector, Ranga Reddy Diskict., One CC to SRI D.LINGA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] i*o CCtio e p FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies s To 1 2 J 4 5 6 PSK. BS HIGH COURT DATED:2510312025 ORDER WP(TR).No.1983 ot 2017 1\l SI ,i /6 1 0 A'it 2025 ($( a c ,+ o o a t \ DtsPosrNG oF THE WRIT PETITION(TR) WITHOUT COSTS g)ot" *9- 'AM