THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO. 14623 of 2010 12-07-2010 BETWEEN; Ch.Nageswara Rao ...Petitioner vs. The Government of A.P rep. by Principal Secretary, HM&FW Dept. Hyderabad ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.NO.14623 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) The order of the learned A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal) dated 26-03-2010 (rejecting O.A (SR) No.1804 of 2010 filed by the petitioner herein assailing a charge memo issued in G.O.Rt.No.790, dated 22-06-2007 on the ground of limitation under Section 21 of the A.P Administrative Tribunals Act,1985) is impeccable and warrants no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is an Assistant Director working as such in King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam. A charge was framed against him and communicated vide G.O.Rt.No.790 alleging recanting of a statement made by the petitioner during the course of investigation, which deposing before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) in a departmental inquiry in TEC No.85 of 2003, instituted against one Sri N.Ratnakumar, who was charged and proceeded against before the TDP, for accepting illegal gratification. The petitioner was charged with failing to maintain integrity and devotion to duty and for indulging in conduct unbecoming of a government servant. Initially G.O.Rt.No.790 was communicated to him containing the charge without communicating therewith, Annexures 1 to 4 which are the articles of charge, the statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour, the list of documents and the list of witnesses by which the charge/charges is proposed to be sustained, at the departmental inquiry, G.O.Rt.No.790 was served on the petitioner on 31-07-2007 on which date he represented to the respondents that Annexures 1 to 4 did not accompany the order. In response thereto, on 31-01-2008 the petitioner was re-served G.O.Rt.No.790 with Annexures 1 and 2. He thereafter represented seeking supply of Annexures 3 and 4. These were served on the petitioner on 18-03-2009. The petitioner filed the O.A before the Tribunal on 15-02-2010 impeaching G.O.Rt.No.790 on the ground that the charge was vague and thus denied a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Registry of the Tribunal recorded an objection as to limitation i.e., the period one year stipulated in Section 21 of the Act. In response, the petitioner contended that as though Annexures 1 and 2 were furnished on 31-01-2008, Annexures 3 and 4 were furnished on 18-03-2009, therefore filing of the O.A. on 15-02-200 is within one year from the date the petitioner was furnished copies of Annexures 3 and 4. It was contended strenuously before the Tribunal and this contention is reiterated here, that in terms of the proviso to Rule 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1991 there is an obligation on the State to furnish a charged employee with all the documents, namely, the articles of charge, the statement of imputation and allegations as well as the list of documents and witnesses qua which the charge is to be sustained and that as a valid charge memo is a compendium of these documents, the charge memo can said to have been furnished, in accordance with the proviso to Section 20 (4) of the 1991 Rules, when he is furnished with all the four documents and that event occurred on 18-03-2009 within a period of one year of the date he filed the O.A. i.e., on 15-02-2010. The learned Tribunal in the order impugned recorded and rightly in our view that the singular ground of attack in the O.A being the vagueness of charge and therefore denial of fair opportunity, it’s only G.O.Rt.No.790 and Annexures 1 and 2 which contain the articles of charge and the statement of imputations which are adequate to enable the petitioner/the charged officer to comprehend the contours of the charge and to properly respond. Annexures 3 and 4 which are the lists of documents and witnesses by which the charge is to be sustained do not in any way clarify the charge. The Tribunal rightly concluded that the O.A was filed beyond the period of limitation, computed from 31- 01-2008 (the date on which the petitioner was furnished Annexures 1 and 2 along with G.O.Rt.No.790). In the considered view of this Court, the order of the Tribunal suffers from no error of law or the exercise of discretion, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J ______________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 12th JULY 2010. TSNR