IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26318 of 2006 Between: 1 The State of A.P., Rep by its Secretary to Government, Education (SE) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of School Education, A.P. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Sri B.V.R. Krishna Murthy, S/o. Late B. Suryanarayana, O/o the District Educational Officer, Guntur. Guntur District, D.No. 1- 36-12, IInd Lane, Maruthinagar, Guntur District. .....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 directions more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" calling for the records connected with order dated 7-3-2006 passed in OA No. 3628/2005 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as illegal and erroneous and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.J.R.MANOHAR RAO The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.26318 of 2006 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 07-3-2006 passed in O.A.No.3628 of 2005 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The details relevant and necessary for deciding the writ petition are that the respondent herein is the applicant in the above O.A. The allegation against him was that while he was working as Superintendent (B-Section) in the office of the District Educational Officer, Guntur, he had used the powers of Superintendent (C-Section), and processed a file relating to C-Section concerning the primary schools and put his initials recommending appointment of certain teachers for the post of SGBT and thus, the act of the respondent has resulted in irregular appointments. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had investigated into the allegation of irregular appointments of SGBTs in various RCM schools of Guntur and submitted a report stating that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct. On the basis of report, the regular departmental enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. A charge memo was issued to the respondent on 31-10- 1995 and the respondent filed his explanation, but no final orders were passed by the authority. Subsequently, the respondent was promoted as Gazetted Administrative Officer and after a lapse of ten years from the date of alleged misconduct i.e. on 15-6-1991, another charge memo dated 14-04-2002 was issued by the Commissioner and Director of School Education to the respondent and disciplinary proceedings were sought to be initiated. The respondent herein challenged the second charge memo dated 14-4-2002. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, allowed the O.A. and directed the petitioners to release the pensionary benefits to the respondent herein. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the State. 3. Heard learned Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 4. Learned Government Pleader contended that the earlier charge-memo was defective and subsequently, the Regional Joint Director concerned was transferred and therefore, the delay has occurred. 5. It is seen from the facts that the respondent/applicant was issued charge memo on 31-10-1995 to which he has submitted his explanation and thereafter, the authority has not passed any final order. The alleged misconduct came to light on 15-6-1991 and the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the first charge memo have not been concluded. The authority has kept quiet for more than ten years and instead of finalising the earlier proceedings, issued another charge memo dated 14-4-2002 to the respondent on the same set of charges. There is inordinate delay and as of now, the disciplinary proceedings remain inconclusive and the petitioners have not satisfactorily explained the delay. In this case, the employee has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and continuance of enquiry at this stage would cause prejudice to him. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the charge memo dated 14.4.2002. We are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has not committed any infirmity calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ___________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. 25-06-2008 bsc ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}