HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 5223 OF 2005 Between: D. Chandraiah S/o Venkataiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to Proc. RC No. J2/3024/2000-2 dated 10.5.2002, Proc.Rc.No. J2/3024/95-7, dated 10.5.2002, Proc.Rc.No. J2/3024/95 dated 23.6.2003 and set aside the same as illegal and also the judgment dated 28.2.2005 passed in O.A.No. 5984 of 2003 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working as District Social Welfare Officer and while working as Assistant Social Welfare Officer, Eturunagaram, he was issued a Charge Memo dated 10.5.2002 for the misconduct related to the period from 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1994, which reads as under: “Proceedings R.C.No. J2/3024/2000-2, Date: 10.5.2002 Sub: SWD-Estt.- Gazetted-Sri D. Chandraiah, Formerly A.S.W.O., Etunagaram, Warangal District and presently working as District Social Welfare Officer in Hyderabad District –Articles of Charges Framed under Rule 20 APCS (CCA) rules 1991-Orders Issued. Ref: (1) Govt. Memo No. 16590/A3/97-1 SWD, Dt: 13.10.1997. (2) Lr. No. B1/621/2000, dt: 16-11-2001 of the Deputy Director (SW), Warangal. ORDER: 1. It is proposed to hold an enquiry against Sri D. Chandraiah, formerly Asst. Social Welfare Officer, Eturunagaram, Warangal District, and presently working as District Social Welfare Officer, in Hyderabad District in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of the APCS (CA) Rules, 1991. 2. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of Articles of charges (Annexure-I). A list of documents which and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexure- II and III). 3. Sri D. Chandraiah, formerly, ASWO, Eturunagaram, Warangal District and presently working as DSWO, Hyderabad District is directed to submit within 15 days (fifteen) days of the receipt of this order, a written statement of his defence. 4. Sri D. Chandraiah, formerly, Asst. Social Welfare Officer, Eturunagaram, Warangal District and presently working as D.S.W.O., Hyderabad District is informed that in inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charges as are not admitted. He should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charges. 5. Sri D. Chandraiah, formerly Assistant Social Welfare Oficer, Eturunagaram, Waranagal District is further informed that if he does not submit his written statement of defence on or before the date specified in Para-3 above further action will be processed based on the material available. 6. Attention of Sri D. Chandraiah, formerly ASWO, Eturunagram, Warangal District is invited to Rule 24 of the APCS (conduct) Rules, 1964, under which no Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his interest in respect of matters pertaining to his service under the Government. If any representation is received on his behalf from any person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that Sri D. Chandraiah, formerly ASWO, Eturunagaram, Warangal District is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at his instance and action will be taken against him for violation of Rule 24 of the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” For the above said Charge memo dated 10.05.2002, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 4.10.2002. It is stated that for the charges pertaining to the year 1991-94, the charge memo was issued pertaining to the supervisory duties after a long lapse of 10 years period. The Supreme Court in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. N. RADHAKRISHNA [1] held that the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings was deprecated. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the judgment of this Court dated 20.9.2007 passed in W.P.No. 19973 of 2007 and WPMP No. 25762 of 2007, wherein this Court after following the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in STATE OF ANDHRA PRADSH VS. N. RADHAKRISHNA (supra-1), P.V. MAHADEVAN VS. M.D. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD[2] and M.V. BIJLANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [3] observed as under: “ If the legal position emerging from the above noted judgments of the Supreme Court is applied to the respondent’s case, we do not find any difficulty in approving the view taken by the Tribunal. It is neither the pleaded case of the petitioners nor the learned Government Pleader argued that the respondent had been charged with the allegation of misappropriation, fraud, cheating or embezzlement of public funds. Rather, it is an admitted case that the allegation leveled against him related to the alleged supervisory negligence. Therefore, the delay of 8 ½ years could certainly be treated fatal to his defence. During this long time gap, the evidence which could justify exercise of due care and caution by the respondent in the discharge of his function as a supervising officer must have been lost. In the premise aforesaid, we hold that the order under challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP. No. 25762 of 2007 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed.” As seen from the record, in this particular case large scale misappropriation has taken place in Warangal District in respect of the funds of the Social Welfare hostels and enquiries have been conducted against number of Wardens/Matrons, ASWOs, and also the Deputy Director and various punishments have been imposed against them and when the case came to the notice of the Government, in G.O.Rt No. 46 dated 3.2.1998 special audit was ordered to be conducted for 1991- 92 and 1993-94 and accordingly, Special audit was conducted and the irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner came to the notice and charges were framed by the disciplinary authority and Charge memo dated 10.5.2002 was issued. Therefore, the Tribunal also dismissed the O.A stating that it will not be in the interest of good and honest administration to quash the Charge Memo on the mere ground of delay. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. In view of the above and also following the judgment of this Court dated 20.09.2007 passed in W.P.No. 19973 of 2007 and WPMP No. 25762 of 2007, this Writ Petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _________________________ G. CHANDRAIAH ,J DATE: 23.06.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] AIR 1998 SC 1831 [2] (2005) 6 SCC 636 [3] (2006) 5 SCC 88