IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22216 of 2008 Between: 1 Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhavan, New Delhi-110011. 2 The Engineer-in-Chief, Military Engineer Service Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, DHQ PO, New Delhi. 3 The Chief Engineer Military Engineer Services Southern Command, Pune-411001. 4 The Chief Engineer (Fly) Hyderabad, Opp. Parade Ground, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND K. Ravi Babu S/o. Late K. Venkat Rao O/o. The Director General, Naval Projects, Mumbai, Resident of Hyderabad. .....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 or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to orders dated 18 Jan. 2008, in O.A.No.769 of 2003, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and quash the same pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W,P,No.22216 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 18.1.2008 passed in O.A.No.769 of 2003 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The respondent herein is the applicant and the petitioners herein are the respondents before the Tribunal. The parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. The O.A. was filed by the applicant against the respondents challenging the memo dated 4.10.2000 passed by the first respondent proposing to hold an inquiry against the applicant under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 and the subsequent order dated 12.12.2001 of the second respondent whereby the pensionery benefits of the applicant were withheld sanctioning only provisional pension. The case of the applicant was that he joined in service as Surveyor Assistant Grade-II in the respondents’ organization with effect from 29.8.1961 and was promoted as Superintendent (Buildings & Roads) Grade-I on 13.5.1965 and as Assistant Surveyor of Works on 13.8.1990, and as Surveyor of Works, which was redesignated as Executive Engineer (Quality, surveying and contracts) with effect from 1.7.1995. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2001. The charge against the applicant was with regard to the technical check that was carried out by the applicant in respect of a final bill pertaining to the execution of the civil contract during the year 1986-87, he has reduced the recovery amount to a tune of Rs.6,84,296.65ps. The applicant submitted a detailed explanation to the charge dated 13.7.1995. The 3rd respondent not being satisfied with the said explanation, ordered a preliminary inquiry to be conducted by the Board of Officers, vide order dated 5.9.1995. The Board of Officers, after inquiring into the matter, submitted a report, wherein it was concluded that the applicant had not committed any mistake nor was he responsible for the reduction of recovery amount. The 1st respondent, vide the impugned charge memo dated 4.10.2000 after a gap of five years, framed a single article of charge against the applicant. The applicant submitted reply dated 6.11.2000 denying the same charge as mentioned in the letter dated 5.7.1995. The applicant sought copies of the documents that were sought to be relied upon by the respondents in support of the charge. But, it is stated that the respondents did not provide the said documents. Thereafter, the 1st respondent appointed an Inquiry Officer vide order dated 15.5.2001 to inquire into the charge. The applicant submitted representation dated 18.5.2001 stating that it was arbitrary and improper to issue the charge sheet and conduct an inquiry after a lapse of 14 years. By order dated 6.6.2001, the applicant’s terminal benefits were sanctioned in accordance with the rules in force and he was also sanctioned a monthly pension of Rs.6,333/-. Consequent to the issuance of the said charge memo, the applicant’s retiral benefits were withheld by the impugned proceedings dated 12.12.2001 and the applicant participated in the inquiry which was held on 29.6.2001 and submitted a letter seeking production of documents which were sought to be relied upon by the Department. But, it is stated that the applicant has not been provided with the documents so far. The Tribunal having considered all these aspects of the matter concluded that the impugned charge memo cannot survive in the eye of law and therefore, the impugned charge memo and the subsequent order dated 12.12.2001 withholding the pensionery benefits were set aside and allowed the O.A. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is preferred by the respondents. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is contended by the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents that the contention of the applicant before the Tribunal with regard to the abnormal delay of 14 years, is not factually correct and as a matter of fact, only due to the procedures involved, the charge memo could not be issued immediately and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. None appeared for the applicant. The alleged charge is stated to have occurred between 1994 to Jannuary 1996, a preliminary check was conducted and the report was forwarded, for which, the applicant has submitted a detailed explanation on 13.7.1995. To enquire into the matter that Board of Officers was constituted and subsequently, a report was submitted by it holding that the applicant is not guilty of the charge. But, peculiarly, charge memo was issued to the applicant on 4.10.2000, and there is no explanation on the part of the respondents for the abnormal delay in issuing the charge memo to the applicant. From the above facts of the case, it is clear that during the year 1995, the applicant had submitted his explanation immediately, so that the conduct of the applicant cannot be doubted. Though the explanation had been submitted in the year 1995 by the applicant and though the report had been submitted by the Board of Directors in the year 1995 itself, the charge memo had been issued in the year 2000 i.e., nearly after a lapse of five and half years, as observed above, there is no explanation on the part of the respondents. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in passing the order impugned in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ______________​____ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 14th October, 2008. PNV THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.NO :22216 of 2008 14th October, 2008