IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9902 of 2009 Between: 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Environment, forests, Science & Technology Department, A.P. Secrtariat, 2 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Maqsood Ahmed, O/o. Dy. Conservator of Forests, Planning and Extension, Mahabubnagar, R/o. 25-40, Old Bazaar, Wanaparthy. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to an connected with the orders dated 25.03.2008 in O.A.No. 6407 of 2007 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set a side the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.N.JANAKI RAMA RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri V.Eswaraiah, J.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.3.2008 passed in O.A.No.6407 of 2007 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, wherein the Tribunal held that there is inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and therefore the same was quashed directing the petitioner-authorities to release the pension and other pensionary benefits within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-applicant, who was working as Forest Range Officer under the petitioners served with Charge Memo dated 27.4.2002 for the events that took place between the years 1993-95. The nature of charges reads as under: “Nature of charges: (1) Negligence of duty- unbecoming of Government servant (a) Gross neglect of duty resulting in illegal activities of saw mil at Dichpally. (b) Allowing shifting of saw mill from sanctioned site to new site at Dharpally without permission. (c) Non-submission of diaries.” For the above said charges, the applicant submitted his explanation on 28.5.2002 and not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the applicant, the authorities appointed Enquiry Officer on 13.6.2002 and after conducting the enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings on 9.8.2002. It is submitted that the applicant retired from service on 31.8.2002. Along with the Enquiry Officer’s report a show cause notice was issued on 23.9.2002 and the applicant submitted explanation on 12.11.2002. As no orders have been passed in view of the inordinate delay by the petitioners in initiating the disciplinary proceedings after a lapse of 6 years from the date of the incident and not passing any orders even after a lapse of 5 years from the date of the charge memo, the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing the said O.A to quash the proceedings. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that there is an inordinate delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings and concluding the disciplinary proceedings and in view of the proviso extracted in G.O.Ms.No. 664, Finance (Pen-I) Department, dated 7.10.2004, complete disciplinary proceedings are quashed and the respondents are directed to release the pension and other pensionary benefits within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed serious legal infirmity in allowing the said O.A by directing the authorities to release pensionary benefits. He also contended that there is no delay in initiating the proceedings and in fact there was a show cause notice and proceedings were belated on account of various functionaries. He further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have quashed the disciplinary proceedings. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that there is inordinate delay and the incident is of the year 2002 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed on 13.6.2002 and he submitted his findings on 9.8.2002. He also submits that along with the Enquiry Officer’s report, a show cause notice was issued on 23.9.2002 and the applicant submitted his explanation on 12.11.2002 and after issuance of the Charge Memo there is a delay of 5 years in concluding the disciplinary proceedings on the part of the authority. Now the issue that arises for consideration is whether the delay on the part of the department is sustainable? Since the respondent involved in a case and for that charges were framed against him. Enquiry Officer held that the charges were proved and thereafter, he submitted his explanation and in the meanwhile he retired from service on 31.8.2002 Thereafter the file was kept with the Government and the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that there is a delay in initiation of proceedings and in fact there is no delay in initiation of proceedings but delay is caused in concluding the proceedings. For concluding the proceedings there will be several factors, which have to be taken note off by the Government and when once the show cause notice was issued by the authorities to show cause as to why the punishment of stoppage of Rs.200/- per month from his pension for a period of five years, besides withholding the entire gratuity, on 22.11.2007 the respondent-applicant is at liberty to file an explanation. Without filing his explanation to the show cause notice dated 22.11.2007 he straight-away approached the Tribunal by way of filing the said O.A and the Tribunal without going into the merits quashed the proceedings, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 25.3.2008 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6407 of 2007 is set aside. The respondent-applicant shall file his explanation to the show cause notice dated 22.11.2007 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such filing of explanation, the Government shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter since the respondent-applicant has already retired from service and that he is suffering from paralysis. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 8.6.2009 kpr