K. GURAVAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:- ".....to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus to declare the impugned punishment order, issued with inordinate delay of (17) years, vide G.O.Rt.No.232 Industries & Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 1/12/2020 (Served on 24/2/2021) by the 1st respondent, against the non-existing Charge Memo dated 24/9/2007, once the same Charge Memo stands quashed in W.P.No.16909 of 2019, dated 30/10/2019, subsequently awarding the impugned punishment, for Recovery of Rs.13,51,000.00 from the pensionary benefits is highly illegal arbitrary and disproportionate, as the delay vitiate the enquiry and causing prejudice to the petitioner, and contrary to the reported judgment in 2013 (4) A;T 1 (DB) and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in (2005) 6 SCC 636, and liable to be set aside, consequently direct the respondents to release all pensionary benefits immediately to the petitioner, and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

(2.) This Court has heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner, who worked in the Industries Department retired on 30/9/2009. On 24/9/2007 a Charge Memo was issued to him, for which a reply was also given. The enquiry into the same was concluded on 6/8/2013 holding that the charges against the petitioner and two others were partly proved. Against the enquiry report the petitioner gave a reply on 09.01.2014, but punishment of a cut in pension equivalent to one annual grade increment along with recovery of Rs.13.51 lakhs was imposed on the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the delay in the conclusion of the proceedings the same is not lawful. He also submits that the delay is contrary to Circular Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98, dated 01.07.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that in view of the settled case law on the subject he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16909 of 2019 for early conclusion of the enquiry. By orders dated 30.10.2019, this Court directed the conclusion of the enquiry within a period of three months and also held that if the enquiry is not concluded the charge memo shall stand quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is also admitted in the counter that a copy of this order was served on the respondents soon after, but they had concluded the enquiry only on 01.12.2020. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner after the expiry of three months period the charge memo itself is quashed and so all further proceedings are bad in law. It is also argued in the alternate that the charge memo does not contain a charge relating to the actual loss said to have been sustained and therefore learned counsel for the petitioner argues that without any evidence or basis recovery of Rs.13.51 lakhs was ordered. Relying on the judgments reported in P.V.Mahadevan v MD, Tamilnadu Housing Board1 and the Division Bench Judgment reported in D.Srinivas v Government of Andhra Pradesh, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Vig.I) Dept., and Others2 learned counsel argues that this is a fit case in which proceedings should be deemed to have been quashed and entire proceedings must be set aside.