K. SAMUEL JOHN Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is presently working as Assistant Commissioner of Labour. Complaint was filed before him under Sec. 48 (1) of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, by a person, by name, Sri P. Appala Naidu against his termination from service. It appears an amount of Rs. 5000.00 was deposited in the account of the petitioner by Appala Naidu. It appears, later Sri P.Appala Naidu complained against the petitioner. Petitioner was served charge memo dated 16.03.2016 containing the allegation on the said issue. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 25.04.2016. Petitioner contends that there is no further progress in the departmental enquiry. While so, Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting was held on 29.08.2016, but petitioner name was deferred for promotion until termination of the disciplinary proceedings. Ignoring the petitioner, juniors to him were promoted by order dated 12.09.2016. In this writ petition, petitioner challenges the charge memo and Government order in G.O.Ms.No. 62, Labour, Employment Training and Factories (Labour) Department, dated 31.08.2016 approving the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Labour for the panel year 2015-16 and seeks consequential declaration that petitioner is entitled to promotion as Deputy Commissioner of Labour in the existing vacancies.

(2.) It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the charge memo, there is reference to Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964, whereas Rule 9 has no application. The Rule 9 only deals with acquiring or disposing of immovable or movable property. It clearly shows non-application of mind and that since Rule 9 has no application to the facts of the case, the charge memo is liable to be set aside on that ground. He would further submit that according to the Government Policy, as reflected in G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 01.11.2008, time schedule is prescribed for completing departmental enquiry. According to this G.O., in simple cases enquiry should be completed within three months and in serious cases, enquiry should be completed within six months. Even assuming that the allegation made against petitioner is grave, since charge memo was issued on 16.03.2016, the enquiry ought to have completed by Sept., 2016. Petitioner submitted his explanation soon after he received the charge memo and petitioner is not responsible for delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. He would further submit that false allegation is levelled against petitioner. Without consent of the petitioner, Appala Naidu deposited the amount in his account. The said money was withdrawn and it was paid to the Advocate engaged by the complainant. On account of mischief committed by Appala Naidu, petitioner cannot be held responsible and on this false allegation, petitioners claim for promotion was denied while granting promotions to his juniors.

(3.) In this writ petition, two issues that arise for consideration are, 1) whether writ petition is maintainable against the charge memo and 2) whether the disciplinary proceedings are liable to be set aside on the ground of delay. ISSUE NO. 1: