GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. C PURUSHOTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is by the State Government and its authorities directed against the order made by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 6-11-1998 in O.A.No.2034 of 1997. The background facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are stated briefly as under.

(2.) In the year 1985 while the 1st respondent was serving as Draughtsman Grade-II in the office of the District Forest Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District, certain allegations were made against him and another official regarding certain alleged irregularities committed by them in the matter of purchase of polythene bags by the Department. On the basis of those allegations, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the 2nd petitioner herein appointed the Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry, the 3rd petitioner herein as the Enquiry Officer to conduct a regular departmental enquiry into the said allegations. The 3rd petitioner framed charges against the 1st respondent herein on 9-9-1985 and the 1st respondent submitted his explanation on 10-2-1986 denying all the allegations. The Enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry submitted his report in the month of May 1986 to the 2nd petitioner herein. The 2nd petitioner did not pass any orders on receipt of the findings from the Enquiry Officer.

(3.) When the things stood thus, the matter. was entrusted to the A.C.B. and the A.C.B. framed certain charges and issued a Charge Memo to the 1st respondent on 8-5-1991. The 1st respondent submitted his explanation to the said Charge Memo on 17-6-1991. Subsequently the 1st respondent retired from service on 30-6-1992 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent being aggrieved by the framing of charges by the A.C.B. filed O.A.No. 5617 of 1992 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). On 18-9-1992, the Tribunal passed an interim order directing the petitioner authorities to examine the representation of the 1st respondent and pass appropriate orders relating to. pensionary benefits. No action was taken by the petitioner authorities in pursuance of the said directions of the Tribunal. On 16-12-1992,O.A.No.5617 of 1992 was finally disposed of by the Tribunal directing the petitioner authorities to pass final orders within two months from the date of receipt of the order and settle the pensionary benefits to the 1st respondent immediately, in any event within three months. Despite this clear direction of the Tribunal, no final orders were passed within the stipulated time by the petitioner authorities. Under those circumstances, the 1st respondent filed Contempt Application No.368 of 1993 complaining abut the inaction of the petitioner authorities. In that Contempt Application, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner authorities stating that all the connected files were already transferred to the G.A.D. and therefore, action could not be taken, as directed earlier by the Tribunal in O.A. No.5617 of 1992 dated 18-12-1992. The 1st respondent subsequently filed another O.A.No.1949 of 1995 seeking a direction to the petitioner authorities to pass final orders. In that O.A. the Tribunal by its order dated 2-8-1996 directed the petitioner authorities to pass appropriate orders within a period of 40 days from the date of receipt of the order. After several rounds of avoidable applications and orders made by the Tribunal, only on 28-10-1996, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st petitioner herein passed an order dropping all the charges levelled against the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, the provisional pension was sanctioned and paid to the 1st respondent in the year 1993; gratuity and commutation of pension were paid on 3-3-1997; leave encashment was paid on 27-2-1997 and pension arrears were also paid on 15-3-1997. In those circumstances, the 1st respondent filed O.A.No.2034 of 1997 before the Tribunal seeking direction to the petitioner authorities to pay interest at the actual market rate on the amount of retirement benefits from the date of his retirement i.e., 30-6-1992 till the actual payment was made to the 1st respondent. That application was clubbed with another O.A.No.385 of 1998 filed by one D. Polaiah, a retired Deputy Director of Agriculture, wherein he also sought for grant of interest. The Tribunal clubbed both the O.As. heard together and disposed of them by a common order dated 6-11-1998.