Y.Surender Reddy v. Building Department, TS Secretariat, Hyderabad

dismiss the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.RAJASEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-lll The Court made the following: ORDER I HON,BLE MRS, JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.3377O of 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri R.Rajasekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill appearing on behalf of respondents. 2 The oetitioner aooroache d this Court seekinq the praver as under: "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in continuing the disciplinary proceedings initiated in the charge memo bearing No.1313/V3lV2/2014-1, dated 11.04.2016 (incident of 2014) as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and void being violative of orders of Government for concluding the disciplinary proceedings within a period of three (3) months and six (6) months in simple matters and complicated matters in G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008 and apart from contrary to the orders of the Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.13775 of 2018, dated 19.04.2018 and set aside the same and pass such other order...".

3. The case oF the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is presently working as District Transport Officer on in-charge ) SN, J wP l.r 770 2023 .!- \ \ '- --. ..t basis. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in A. P. State Co-operative Rural Irrigation Corporation Limited and thereafter the petitioner was absorbed in Transport Department as per the orders of the erstwhile Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and as well as orders vide Rc.No.BB2B/C3/2009 dated 10.08.2010 and posted to Zone-VI as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, then the petitioner was promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector on 07.01.2017. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner received a charge memo bearing No.1313/V3/V2/2014-L, dated

17.O4.2016 try the 2nd respondent alleging that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector at RTA Check Point, on the intervening night of U/18.01.2014 from 1:00 hours to 5:00 hours the petitioner was found indulging in corrupt practices and collecting bribe from the new crew transport vehicles, which passed through check post with the help of private agency. The petitioner submitted explanation on

24.01.2077 denying the allegations made against the petitioner in the charge memo and requested to drop further action. But, the 1st respondent issued orders appointing the enquiry officer to conduct enquiry in proceedings bearing R.No.1313/V3/V2/2014 dated 05.07.2017, directing the enquiry officer to submit the ) SN. J t t7l0 tot I enquiry report within a period of two months. As on today, the said enquiry is pending. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13775 of 2018 challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge memo dated

11.04.2016 and the Hon'ble Court vide its ludgment dated

19.04.2018, directed the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months, but as on today the respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred this writ petition. 4, PERUSED THE RECORD. (A) The relevant oortion of the order dated

19.04.2018 oassed in W.P.No.13775 ot 2O18 filed bv the oetitioner on an earlier occasion, is extracted hereunder: "...Since it is stated that the issue pertains to the year 2014 and impugned charge memo was issued on 11.O4.2O16, the respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a -1 SN. J wP 13770 2023 \ - ---' - sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stands closed." (B) The interim order qranted in favour of the petitioner on 26.12.2O23 in present W.P,No.3377O of 2023, is extracted hereunder: "..Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the order dated 19.04.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.No.13775 of 2OlB wherein the respondents were already directed to conclude the subject disciplinary proceedings, within a period oF six months therefrom, there shall be interim suspension of the impugned charge memo bearing No.1313/V3/V2/20I4-1, dated 11.04.20t6, pending Further orders of this Court." The said orders are in force as on date. (C) The counter affidavit filed bv the resoondents. in particular, oaras 12, 14 and 15, are extracted hereunderl "12. lt is further submitted that unless a detailed enouirv is conducted in this case, it would not be known whether alleqations aqainst the pg!_t!I o rlq r Sri Y.Surender Red tor Vehicles inspeqtor are proved or not. There a re ma ny other charged officers in the disciplinary case. The explanations oF the other charged ofFicers have to be examined. The enquiry is to be conducted on all the charged oFficers in a I I I 5 SN. J \\T.t.1770 2021 common enquiry. Issue of notices, verification of documents, examination of witnesses takes longer time in the disciplinary cases arising out of ACB raids.

14. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein is involved in a trap case conducted by the ACB on 12.01.2024 in the office of the DTO, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri and he was arrested t3.0L.2024 and produced before the Hon'ble I Addl.Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nampally at Hyderabad and remanded to judicial custody as he demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant as a reward for showing an official favor i.e., "Cancellation of National Permit for the lorry bearing No.AP16TE6646 and also to return original documents pertaining to National Permit Cancellation of the Complainant through A-2 Sri Singam Mallikarjun Private Assistant of AO-1 i.e., petitioner herein. Since he was detained in judicial custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, as per Rule B (2) (a) ofTSCS (CC&A) Rules 1991 Sri Y.Surender Reddy, MVI was placed suspension, vide Transport Commissioner proceedings R.No.245lV3/V2/ 2024, dated 23.0L.2024.

15. It is submitted that since the petitioner is under judicial custody and placed under suspension, he cannot attend the inquiry even if the Enquiry Officer issues a notice to attend the inquiry. Hence until and unless the petitioner is reinstated into service, the inquiry cannot be concluded ag ainst him. It is submitte the Cha ro esw hile thee n o ul rv ts u nder process and (, SN, J wP ll770 2021 f f n tn co procerect inqs would not be in the interest of admirnistratio n and iustice." thr: disci DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION:

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of :he petitioner submits that the petitioner received a Charge Memo dated l!.04.2016 bearing No.1313/V3lV2/2014-l issued by the 2nd respondent herein framing certain specific charges against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner indulged in corrupt practices as on the date of the surprised check conducted by the ACB authority on 17/L8.01.2014. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in response to the said charge Memo issued to the petitioner dated 11.04.2016 the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation \vay back in 24.01.2017 . But [rowever, the departmental proceedings had not been concluded as on date and the petitioner on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13775 of 2018 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction against the 2nd respondent thereunder in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated in the charge nlemo bearing No.1313/V3lV2/2014-1, dated 11.04.2016 as illegal, directing the respondents thereunder in W.P.No.13775 of 2018 to -a 1 SN. J ul, 11770 l0l l conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt oF the said order. However, the disciplinary proceedings had not been concluded even in the year 2023, hence the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition in December, 2023 and this Court vide its order dated 26.12.2023 referring particularly to the earlier orders obtained in favour of the petitioner'dated 19.04.2018 passed in W.P.no.13775 of 2018 granted interim suspension of the impugned charge memo dated LL.04.201.6, pending further orders and the said orders are in force as on date. Learned counsel appearing on behalF of the petitioner further submits that since the disciplinary proceedings which had been initiated on 11.04.2016 had not been concluded against the petitioner in spite of the orders dated 19.04.2018 obtained in favour of the petitioner in the earlier writ petition W.P.No.13775 of 2018 filed by the petitioner as on date, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition and the writ petition needs to be allowed.

6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on the averments made by the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in particular, paragraph Nos.12, 14 and 15 \ ( \ 8 S\. J \vP -i177{) 2023 l''r \ contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition

7. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates the fact that surprise check had been conducted on 17/18.01.2014 and the Charge Memo had been issued to the petitioner t-wo years later i.e., on 11 04.20L6, and though the petitioner had submitted his explanation to the charge memo dated 11,.04,20t6 on

24.01.2077 itselF, yet the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner had not been concluded in spite of the specific orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.13775 of 2OlB dated 19.04.2018 to the respondents herein to conclude the subject disciplinary proceedings within a period cf six months from the date of the said order.

8. The Sgq21 Court in the Judoment reported in (1998) 4 SCC 154 in State of A.P. v N.Radha Kishan, in particular at para 18 obse ed as under: The High Court quashed the memo of charges on the principal ground of delay of five and a half years in serving the memo of charges, for which there was rro acceptable explanation. This Court examined the factual position as to how the delay occurred and if Goyal had been prejudiced in any way on account of delay. This Court -elied on the Principles laid down in A.r. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1992 (1) SCC 225), and said, that though that caser pertained to criminal prosecution the principles enunciated therein were broadly applicable to the pleas of delay ,11 taking the -' SN, J NP ll770 2021 disciplinary proceedings as well. Referring to decision in a.r. Antulay case this Court said:- balancinq test or balancinq Drocess "In paraqraDh 86 of the iudqment, this Court mentioned the propositions emerqinq from the several decisions considered therein and observed that "ultimatelv the court has to balan ce and wei o h the several relevant factors determine in each case whether the right to soeedv trial has been denied in a oiven case." It has also been held that, ordinarilv soeakinq, where the court comes to the Conclusion that right to speedv trial of the accused has been infrinoed. the charoes. or the conviction. as the case may be, will be quashed. At the same time it has been observed that that is not the only course open to the court and that in a given case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances may be such that quashing the proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a case/ it has been observed, it is open to the court to make such other appropriate order as it finds just and equitable in the circumsta nce of the case."

9. The Apex Court in the Judqment reported in (20O5) 6 SCC 636 in P.V.Mahadevan v Md T.N. Housinq Board, in particular at paras 11 and 12 observed as under: "Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher 1B WP_14566,2019 SN,l government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciolinarv enouirv aqainst a qovernme nt em lovee should , therefore, be avoided in th tnte ests of the qovernment emolovee not o nl but in oublic interest and also in the interests of e o r l0 \i' \\ l ii--'1 -1'' 1 lngl2irinq confidence in the minds of th,rl oovernment emplovees. At this staoe, it is necessar:v to draw the eurlain and to put an end to the -enquirv. The and more on a.pp_ account of the disciplinarv Droceedinq!. As a matter of !ac!- the mental aqonv and suff6rrinqs of the aDpellant due to the Drotracted disciplinarv proceedinqs would be m uch more than the punishment. For the mistakes comrrritted bv the deoartment in the orocedure for .!nitiatino the disciplinary proceedinos, the appellant-should not be made toruffel 12._We. therefore, have no hesitation_ to ouash the q hAltgg memo issued aoainst the a.tooellant. The Epgqa I is allowed. The apoellant will be- entitled to all the- retiral benefits in accordance q ith law. The re!!1aI benefit shall be disbursed_. within three 10, In view oF the observations of the Apex Court in the -Judgment:; referred to and extracted above, thrs Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for grant of reiief ls prayed for in the present rvrit petition .

11. Takino into consideration: (A) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the ca se, (B) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner anrl the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing orr trehalf of the respondents, rt-- SN, J wP 1t770:02i (C) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, tn particular, para Nos.12, 14 and 15 relied upon by the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the responden ts, (D) The interirrr order dated 26.L2.2023 passed an W.P.No.3377O ot 2023 which is in force as on date, (E) The eartier order dated 19.04.2018 passed in favour of petitioner in W.P.No.13775 of 2O18 which had not been complied as directed by this Court in the said orde r, (F) The observations of the Apex Court in the I I Judgments referred to and extracted above, (G) The fact that the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner pertained to surprise check conducted on 17/L8.OL.2O14 and the Charge Memo had been issued to the petitioner two years later i.e., on L1.O4.20L6, (H) The fact as borne on record that though the petitioner furnished his explanation dated 24.O1.2OL7 to the said charge memo dated 11.04.2OL6, the disciplinary proceedings however had not been concluded as on date, i2 \\ \\ l) Ii-_ll lr)li I -! The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Charge Memo bearing No.1313 /V3/V2/2OL4-1 dated 11.04.2016 is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The nrisceilaneous applications, if any pendi,-q, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYI l t ASS}S To,

1. The Transport Commissioner, Telangana State, Kh 2. The Principal Secretary, Trans rt, Roads and Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of langana Te SD/- C. DEEPIKA T REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER Hyderabad Department, TS

3. One CC to SRI R RAJASEKHAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-||I, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] \ BSR GJP Two CD Copies \y HIGH COURT DATED: 29107t2025 CC TODAY i-) t I .:) | ,_) 11\0\ ilt6 (\s,:*$ 1,1 Fjii/',,/ ORDER WP.No.33770 af 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @ R,'i