T he Judoment of the ADex Cou in P.V.Mah devan v. MD T.N.Housino Board, dated O

proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, as; b,-ing arbitrary, illegal, vitiated [,7 i66 rdinate and unexplained delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated by the Government for completion of enquiries in G.o.Ms.No.679, d1.1 .1 1 .2008 and alsr> contrary to the Judgment of Hon ble CoL rt in W'P No' 34220t2022. dl.4.g.21)22 deemed to have dropped and in Rule ,20 TSCS(CCand A) Rules, 1991 and ir violation of Articles 14 and 1ad the corrstitution of lndia and quash the sitme :rnd consequently direct the respondents to sanction and release full pension ard full retirement and pensionary b€'nefits wrth an interest of 1B percentage per annum from the date of retirement to the late of actual payment in the inlerest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under rsection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fikrd in support of the petition, the High coLrrt may tre pleased To suspend the ope-ation of charge Memo. issued by the Tribunal frrr Disctplinary Proceedings vidt: Tr hunal Enquiry Case No 245l2o1a; dl 21 12.2017 and Tribunal Enquiry Cast: No 40612013, dt 2.2.2018, by dire'ctrng thr:r respondents to release full pensicn and pensionary/retirement benefits fo(hwith pending disposal of writ pt:titio r Counsel for the F'etitioner: SRI D LINGA RAO Counsel for the Flespondent Nos.1,2 and 4: GP FOR PROHIBITTION AND EXCISE Counsel for the Fl.espondent No.S: SRI M. MURALI KRISHNA The Court made 1:he filllowing: ORDER i, t, t, t, r I HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.3 34L4 0F 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri D.Langa Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearned Government plead€r for Prohibition and Excise, appearing on behalf of the respondents,

2. The o titioner aoo roached the Court seekino Draver asu d er: ".,.to issue a Writ, Order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for an alleged incident pertaining to the year 2O|O-2OI2 Vide Charge Memo. in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 245/2013 dt: 2L.72.2OL7 and Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 406/2013, dt: 2.2.2018 and further withholding full retirement and pensionary benefits on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated by the Government for completion of enquiries in G.O.Ms.No. 679, dt: 1.11.2008 and also contrary to the Judgment of Hon'ble 2 SN, J , t_ I1.1r4_2021 Court in W.P.No. 34220/2022, dt: 4.9.2022 deenred to have dropped and in Rule 20 fSCS(CC&A) Rules, 1991 and ln viclation of Articles l4 and 16 of the Consl itution of India and quash the same and consequently dir:)ct the responde nts to sanction and release full pension € nd full retirement and pensionary benefits with an interest of 1Bo/o per annum from the date of retirement to tl-e date of ac:tual payment in the interest of justice and tr pass such other order or further orders as this Hon'ble: Court may deem fit and proper in the circums;tances of the case "

3. It is spercific case of the petitioner that tne petitioner was appointed as Constable on 31.10.1985 and was prromoted as Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector in the year 2011. When the petitioner was; working as Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector in Khammanr D strict, ACB officials had. conducted raicls on the offices of Liquor Syndicates of Khamrram l own on 16/77.12.201L, in which, some documents relating to mamools, stated to have been paid to Police and Ex:cise D{.lpartment Officials. -rherefore, ACB addressed a letter to the Government to take disciplinary action against the Excise Officiall,r leveling allegations against the petitioner stating that the petilioner had indulged in corrupt practices. Subsequently, the Tr bunal for l ., SN, J wp 334t4_2023 Disciplinary proceedings had framed a charge against the petitioner vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No-245 of 2013 dated

27.72.2017 and 406 of 2073 dated 02.02.2018. It is further the cise of the petitioner that the ACB had found no incriminating material or evidence against the petitioner, however, ACB initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and charge dated 2t.72.2017 and 02.02.2018 had been issued to the petitioner by the Tribunal tor Disciplinary proceedings, Telangana State, Hyderabad and the same had been pending as on date. It is further the case oF the petitioner that due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the respondents are wiihholding full retirement and pensionary benefits. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE R ECORD.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in respect of Tribunal Enquiry Case No.245 of 2013, dated 21.12.2Ot7 and Tribunat Enquiry Case No.4O6 of 2O13, dated 02.O2.2O18 registered against the petitioner herein in the year 2O13, a charge had been 4 SN. J |p i34lt 2021 framed try the Tribunal Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP), dated 21 ,L2.2OL7 and O2.O2.2O18 respectively against the petitioner an,cl TEC Nos.245 of 2013 and 406 of 2O13 had been pendin!, as on date without any progress' 5, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that although the petitioner retired from service on 3O.O9.2O18, only provisional pension had been paid sinc:e then, and the entire pensionary benefits i.e., full servirce pension, commutation, and gratuity have been wrongfully withheld without any justification and thereforer, the charge itself needs to be quashed, and the petitioner's case should be considered for release of entire pensionary benefits.

6. In support of petitioner's case, learned counsel appearinE on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated

29.O1.2O2L lrassed in W.P.No.87O ot 2O2t which refer to Charge Memos in TEC LL6/2OL3, L36/2OL3 and 172/2013 pertaining to, the same incident in different places of work related to the year 2012 (liquor syndicate cases) in 5 SN, J wp 13414 2021 respect of the petitioner's there under in W.p.No.g7O of 2021 and contends that the petitioner is entifled for the similar relief as extended to the said petitioner in W.P.No.87O ot 2O2L vide order, dated 29.01 .2O2L.

7. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand contends that the respondents may be directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of six (O6) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and if the proceedings are not concluded for any reason within the said period of six (06) months by the respondents, the respondents may be directed to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, 8 T he Judoment of the ADex Cou in P.V.Mah devan Vs. MD T.N.Housino Board, dated O8.O8.2OO5 reoorted in (200s) 6SCC6 36 and in oarticular at para Nos 6&11,it is observed as under:- 6 SI.L J \ p ll4 11 2023 :he app cf the a te ntao n

6. t'4r. F'rabhakar also invited our attention to tht: affidavit ellant in support of his cas;e. It is stated in filed by ffidavit that the respondent wilh-ttte-Oala para 74 issued the oresent charqe memo fide in the aDDellant even thouqh the alleoed aqailnst incident of issuance of sale deed was of which was 10 vear prior to the issuance of 1 that very reason for issuirg charge cha rqe memo and appellant could br: det.aired from menlo \vas that the pronrotinq to the post of Chief Engineer of th€r Housing Boa rd . re.

11. Urder the circumstances, we are of the cplnion that allovving the respondent to proceed further wlth the departmental proceedings at this distance of :inre will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher govornnrent official under charges of corruption and ble menl-al disputec integrity would cause unbeara The Drot racted and disr:ress to the officer concerned. d iscio lina rv enoulrv ao ar nst a qovernment em olovee be avoided not on sho ul d. inte stsofth e do vernmente m D Iovee hut tn ubli c r i nte rest and also in the int rests of rnsDrrrnq the qovernment confidence emDlo vees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the quiry. -the appellant had curtain and to put an end to the en already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a niatter of fact, tt're mental agor.ry and sufferings of the appellant due to the I)rotracted d'rsciplinary proceedings would be mucfr more than the pun shnrent. For the mistakes committed by the dep,rrtn ent in the procedure for initiating the dlsciplinary pro<:eedings, the appellant should not be rnade to suffer. in the minds of 9 The ADex Court in a catena of its iud oments enlist ed below held that the Courts h ave a dut to o uash the proceedinqs due to delay, 7 SN. J wp l14l4 2021 i) The Court of A.p. Vs, A.Rajeswara Reddy reported in 2O1O(3) ALD page sO1 (DB) ii) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of f ndia and Others reported in 2OO6 (5) SCC page 88. iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 57O. iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC page 305. v) Secretary, Minastry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2O12 (11) SCC 56s.

10. The Division Bench of this Court date 26.o4.2 DassedinW P.No.2 426 ot2 1 3 in its iudo ment o 1 3a nd the Division Bench of thi Court in its iu qment, 25.O 6.2013 oassed in .P.Nos.1 924. LO307. LO441 and 10488 of 2OL3, referrinq to delayln t t ta ln ncl u I cau ses Drei dice to the deli o uent, as such the sa ers also a qround for quash tnq the charqe i elf. 8 SN, J ,,p.114t12021 \j

11. Takinq into co nsideration the fact as bor ne on record thal the ctarqe M had beerr issued aqainst the oetitioner i n resoect of TEC 2t.L2 o 7-7 and O2.02.2018 Nos.245 of 2O 13 and 4O 6 of 2O13, reqistered aqainst the Detitioner in the vear 2O1 3 and the fact that there is no proq r ss in the said Tribunal Enquirv Case Nos. 245 of 20\3 ancl 405 of 2O13. even as on date in the vear 202 5. nes thal since the alleqations leveled this Cou aqa I nst the Detitioner in the vear 2O13 had not been oroved as on date in the vear 2025, and there i conclusion a rrived at holdinq the Detationer as q uiltv of the a lleoed incidents that took Dlace tn the vear_ZQlll without lravinq reached finali on the sub lssue even e ar 2O25. the oetitioner ca n not be pul__Eq__Aly in the fu rther nrental aoonv and sufferinq at this lenoth of ti me. L2. Takin o into consid ration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the respondents. 9 SN, J wp 314 14 2021 - c) The iu oments of the Various Cou rts enlisted elow:- i) The observations in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated W.P.No.87O of 2O21 vide order, dated 29.O1.2021. ii) The judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T,N.Housing Board, dated

08.08.2005 reported in (2OO5) 6 SCC 635(referred to and extracted above) iii) The judgment of Division Bench of this court, dated 26.04.2O13 passed in W.P.No.2826 ot ZOL3. iv) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.O6.2O13 passed in W.P.NoI.LL294, LO3O7, LO44L & 10488 of 2013. v) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajeswara Reddy reported in 2O1O(3) ALD Page sO1 (DB) vi) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2OO6 (5) SCC page 88. vii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 57O. viii) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC Page 3O5. t0 SN, J .\p 13114 2021 ix) Ser:retary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs' Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2012 (11) SCC 56I;. Charoe rne os da Tht: Writ Petition is al lowed as oraved for and the 2L.L2. 2OL7 and o2.o2.20L framed the Det tron e n res ne c_t of TEC Nos.245 of 2013 and 406 of 2OL3 are accord inolv uashed, However , there shall be no order as to the TDP a al n costs. q o Miscellz neous petitions, if any, pend ng in this Writ etition' r;hali stand closed' P I/rRuE coPY" \ ,'-1* ''o* it'JJ;'Jl1'st'$f-il:- -- oFFlcER / l- ,,. i;"' To, 1 2 a

4. t) 7 B o "]' l!ilH {i&":',*+li;{iil+1[JEi:i.Bt*: l +kH:t*; *re rriuunar ror Disciptinary Proceedinss' Nampallv' ?il:i3?3il1"''"'onu' or Prohibition and Excise" waranEal Division' H:,tltl,+i:,',itr4:#r,r#!l;3diilj'!lsl"#'lor'lres'la'le'r i?'3 Bg6inh'.;;l*n'^i: xll s c to P u cr Two Ct) CoPies TJ BS Yy h F F HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:27 t03t2025 ORDER WP.No.33414 of 2023 .,-'. :'.=-:\ ..:,iL:-\ .v,/.\ ? i ;iiiY 2ffi (. . i I t. il ',\,':. \:. t i l I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C|OSTS \>@Pe6 6--ffir !! L 4,l I J t, ,ir