IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH 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 : 21173 of 1999 Between: S.Vasantha Devi W/o Gouri Shankar Director of Woman,Development and Child Welfare Department , Karimnagar, Karimnagar Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary to Government Women Development , Child Wefare and Disabled Welfare Department , Secretariat Hyderabad 2 The Director and commissioner of Woman Development and Child Welfare Department, Govt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 order , direction or an appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of Writ Mandamus directing the respondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner holding that the judgment dt. 24/07/98 of the Honble Tribunal to the extent it gave liberty to the respondents to proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner is against the law , that the AP. C.S (CCA) Rules have no application to a Government employee, that the action of the 1st respondent in framing charges by their Memo.No.3/Esst-A2/89-63 dt.02/11/98 and the proposed enquiry are illegal, arbitrary, violative of the AP.C.S (C.C. A) Rules and the settle law and consequently direct the respondent to release all pensionery and retirement benefits to the petitioner by treating the suspension period as duty and pass order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GOPALA RAO GANDRAKOTA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.21173 OF 1999 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) The petitioner herein is a retired Asst. Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department. On the allegation that during the year 1988-89 she committed some irregularities in implementation of wheat based food programme for supply to the pregnant women and children sponsored by the Government of India with the support of other countries, a complaint was made to the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department-2nd respondent herein and acting on the said complaint, the 2nd respondent called for explanation by issuing memo dated 1-12-1988. It is stated that the petitioner submitted her explanation, but not satisfied with her explanation, the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 26-12- 1988 by GO Ms.No.869, dated 22-12-1988. It is stated that the 2nd respondent was appointed as enquiry officer by GO Ms. No.870, dated 22-12-1988, but even before any action could be taken by him, another enquiry officer was appointed by GO Ms.No.12, dated 4-1-1989 and that enquiry officer conducted preliminary enquiry into the matter on 31-3-1989 and 1-4-1989 and based on the preliminary report, show cause notice dated 22-6- 1989 was issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner as to why action not be taken by framing appropriate charges, to which the petitioner is stated to have submitted her explanation stating that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte and without affording opportunity of being heard in the matter to her. 2. It is further stated that aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed OA RP No.30447 of 1989 before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of by order dated 6-12-1989 and the impugned show cause notice dated 22-6-1989 was quashed holding that the person who conducted preliminary enquiry also conducted regular enquiry and that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. However, the Tribunal reserved liberty to the respondents to appoint a fresh enquiry officer, other than a person who conducted the preliminary enquiry and proceed with the matter and such exercise was directed to be completed within a period of six months thereof. It is stated that thereafter an enquiry officer was appointed by order dated 3-4- 1990 and the enquiry officer proposed to conduct enquiry on 27-6- 1990, but as the petitioner was stated to be hospitalized, she requested to postpone the enquiry to a further date which was not acceded to and the enquiry officer conducted enquiry ex-parte and submitted report based on the material available. It is stated that aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner filed another OA No.38451 of 1990 before the Tribunal contending that the respondents proceeded in the matter after expiry of six months period fixed by the Tribunal. The said OA No.38451 of 1990 was disposed of by order dated 11-11-1997 observing that since the petitioner has been retired from service any action on the allegations made against her will have to be taken only under Rule 9 of AP Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and not under the CCA Rules. It was further observed by the Tribunal that any proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall have to be completed within a period of six months and the respondents were also directed to take action to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioner entitled by her, as per rules. It is further stated that pursuant to this order, without conducting enquiry, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice dated 11-3-1998 as to why the pension of the petitioner should not be reduced to the extent of 40 % permanently. As the said show cause notice was not preceded by any preliminary enquiry, the petitioner again filed OA No.4762 of 1998 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 24-7-1998 quashed the said show cause notice dated 11-3-1998, however, left it open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the rules within a period of six months. It was also directed by the Tribunal that in case the enquiry could not be completed within a period of six months, the petitioner shall be released full pensionary benefits. Pursuant to this direction, it is stated that the 1st respondent again issued fresh charge memo dated 2-11-1998 and directed the petitioner to submit her explanation. Since the charge memo dated 2-11-1998 was issued to the petitioner pursuant to the liberty reserved to the respondents by the Tribunal while disposing of the OA No.4762 of 1998 by order dated 24-7- 1998, the petitioner has filed this writ petition question that portion of the order in so far it relates to reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed against her. The petitioner also challenges the impugned charge memo dated 2-11-1998 on the ground that the proceedings sought to be initiated under the CCA rules are not applicable to her case as she is retired from service and, action if any, can be taken only under Rule 9 of Revised Pension Rules. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 4. Admittedly, the allegations made against the petitioner relate to the year 1988-89 and the petitioner has retired from service in the year 1993. The basis on which the respondents seek to proceed against the petitioner was on the complaint made by some individual organizers connected with the supply of food to their wheat based centers in the year 1988. This Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served if the enquiry is now allowed to be proceeded, nearly after 20 years. The petitioner stated to have been retired from service in the year 1993 and she may be now aged 74 years and she cannot be asked to face enquiry at this age and at this length of time. 5. In this view of the matter, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned memo dated 2-11-1998 issued by the 1st respondent herein. The respondents are also directed to release the pensionary benefits entitled to be received by the petitioner as per rules. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated:17th June, 2008 Note: cc in one week. (b/o) Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{GR}