K.ANAND BABU Vs. STATE OF TEELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.Gopal Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is questioning the proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.509, MA & UD (Vig.II) Department dtd. 24/8/2017, G.O.Rt.No.267, MA&UD (Vig.III) Department dtd. 31/3/2021 appointing an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively for concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated in Charge Memo No.G.O.Rt.No.1312, MA & UD (E2) Department dtd. 18/11/2006 which is not communicated to the petitioner and the delinquency pertains to the year 1997-98 and continuance of the prolonged disciplinary proceedings without even commencing the same so far and for not-releasing the pensionary benefits including gratuity, etc. though the petitioner retired from service on 30/6/2017 on attaining the age of superannuation.

(3.) The Learned Counsel submits that the respondents said to have issued Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.1312, MA and UD (E2) Department dtd. 18/11/2006 which was not even communicated to the petitioner and the allegations are that the petitioner and three others allowed a builder to construct the unauthorized construction in a cellar floor into shops and regularizing the same in violation of Rules in the erstwhile Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and the said allegation pertains to the year 1997-98.