M.SIVARAJU Vs. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charge memo dated 24.8.2017, issued by the third respondent against the writ petitioner, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The moot question advanced by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, is that there is an enormous delay in framing of the charges, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Secondly, the respondents had waited till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, which were ended with an order of acquittal and thereafter initiated disciplinary proceedings and therefore, on that ground also, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Thirdly, the writ petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charges and the benefit of acquittal is to be extended by quashing the charge memo, which was otherwise framed based on the same list of documents and the same list of witnesses.

(3.) In order to substantiate the above grounds raised by the writ petitioner, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that Courts have quashed the charge memo on the ground of delay in many cases. The Courts have decided the cases on the issue of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, even during the pendency of the criminal case. The Courts have decided the issue in respect of the charges, which all are framed based on the same set of documents and the same set of witnesses. Thus, all these benefits are to be extended to the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be allowed.