WRIT PETITION 1736 of 2021 on 27 December 2007

ORDER:

A petition was initially filed as O.A.No.837 of 2018[before][ the]Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which,after transferof thematter to this Court, was re-numbered as W.P.(A.T.)[No.][ 1736][ of][ 2021.]

2. The petitioner sought to declare the Charge Memo issued[vide]Rc.No.X2/28971/1994, dated 27.12.2007 as illegal, void[ab]initio andviolative of Articles14 and16 of the ConstitutionofIndia and timebarred and quash the same; and direct the respondents[to][ sanction][ the]remaining pension and gratuity and pass any other appropriate[order.]Rc.No.X2/28971/1994, dated 27.12.2007 as illegal, void[ab]initio andviolative of Articles14 and16 of the ConstitutionofIndia and timebarred and quash the same; and direct the respondents[to][ sanction][ the]remaining pension and gratuity and pass any other appropriate[order.]

3. The case of the petitioner is briefly as follows;

a.Thepetitioner was appointed as Reserve Sub-Registrarduring the year 1979 and promoted to several levelsi.e.. AssistantDistrictRegistrar,DistrictRegistrar,DeputyInspectorGeneralandretired from service on 31.05.2013.during the year 1979 and promoted to several levelsi.e.. AssistantDistrictRegistrar,DistrictRegistrar,DeputyInspectorGeneralandretired from service on 31.05.2013.

b.WhilethepetitionerwasworkingasSub-Registrar,Vijayawada,theimpugnedchargememowasissuedbytheCommissioner &InspectorGeneral,Registration&Stamps,videRc.No.X2/28971/1994,27.12.2007,levellingthefollowingchargesagainst the petitioner:Vijayawada,theimpugnedchargememowasissuedbytheCommissioner &InspectorGeneral,Registration&Stamps,videRc.No.X2/28971/1994,27.12.2007,levellingthefollowingchargesagainst the petitioner:

“Charge -I: While the petitioner was working as Joint[Sub-]Registrar,Vijayawadahadadmittedandregistered(17)documents i.e., 1840/094, 2925/94, 46/94, 1638/94, 1640/94,1641/94,1643/94,2022/94,2023/94,2024/94,2027/94,2272/94, 2273/94, 2769/94, 2770/94, 2771/94 and 2772/94pertainingtoassignedlandsatSub-RegistrarOffice,Vijayawada inspite of it being included in the list of prohibited landsfromregistration.Shefailedtoscrutinizeabovedocumentsandregisteredthedocumentsviolatingtheinstructions issued in the A.P. Assigned lands (Prohibition[of]Transfer)Act,1977andInspectorGeneral'sMemo.No.G1/32938/92, dated 20.10.1993. Therefore,itis aclear lapse and misconduct on the part of the Sub-Registrar,Vijayawada and unbecoming of a Government servant andviolated the Rule -3 of A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

Charge-11: While the petitioner was working as Joint[Sub-]Registrar, Vijayawada has failed to submit her explanationpertainingtoregistrationofAssignedlandsdocumentsmentioned in Charge -I, as she has violated the instructionsissued by the A.P. Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transfer)Act, 1977 and Inspector General's Memo.No.G1/32938/92,dated 20.10.1993 thoughshe has been remindedseveraltimes by the Deputy Inspector General (R&S), Eluru[and][ also]from this office. Therefore,it is a clear lapse and[misconduct]on the part of the Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada and unbecomingof a Government servant and violated the Rule -3 of A.P.C.S.(Conduct) Rules, 1964.”

c.Thepetitioner submitted her explanation on 24.03.2008denyingthecharges.Thepresentingofficerwasappointedon16.04.2008 and the inquiry officer was appointed on 28.10.2009. But, tillnow, no final order was passed. As the inquiry was ordered in the year2007, the petitioner retired on 31.05.2013, and further,thereisunexplained delay of about 24 years fromthe dateoftheeventinconcluding enquiry proceedings, the petitioner filed the present petitionto set aside the impugned charge memo.denyingthecharges.Thepresentingofficerwasappointedon16.04.2008 and the inquiry officer was appointed on 28.10.2009. But, tillnow, no final order was passed. As the inquiry was ordered in the year2007, the petitioner retired on 31.05.2013, and further,thereisunexplained delay of about 24 years fromthe dateoftheeventinconcluding enquiry proceedings, the petitioner filed the present petitionto set aside the impugned charge memo.

■A''.'j

■A''.'j

4. In support of her contention, the petitioner relied[on][ the][ decision]oftheSupremeCourtinStateofAndhraPradeshVs.N.Radhakishan\ wherein at paragraph No. 19 it was held[as][ follows:]oftheSupremeCourtinStateofAndhraPradeshVs.N.Radhakishan\ wherein at paragraph No. 19 it was held[as][ follows:]

“It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principlesapplicabletoall cases andinallsituations where thereisdelay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether[on]that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be[terminated]eachcasehastobeexaminedonthefactsandcircumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is thatthe court has to take into consideration all the relevant factorsand to balance and weigh them to determineifitisintheinterestofcleanandhonestadministrationthatthedisciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate afterdelay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there[is][ no]explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee[has]aright that disciplinary proceedings against him are[concluded]expeditiously and heis not made to undergo mental agonyandalsomonetarylosswhentheseareunnecessarilyprolongedwithoutanyfaultonhispartindelayingtheproceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated[the]disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider[the][ nature]of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay[has]occurred.Ifthedelayisunexplainedprejudicetothedelinquent employee is writ large on the face of it.It could alsobe seen as to how much the disciplinary authority is[serious][ in]pursuing the charges againstits employee.Itis thebasicprinciple of administrative justice that an officer[entrusted][ with]

' 1998 see (L&S) 1044

a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficientlyand in accordance with the rules.If he deviates from this pathheisto suffer a penalty prescribed.Normally,disciplinaryproceedings should be allowed to take their course asperrelevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay[causes]prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown[that][ he]is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanationforthedelayinconductingthedisciplinaryproceedings.Ultimately,thecourtistobalancethesetwodiverseconsiderations.”

5. SriVuyyuruRamManohar,learnedAssistantGovernmentPleader for Services - I, submitted written instructions of the respondentNo.2, vide Lr.No.X2/28971/1994,dated 28.08.2024, wherein, apart fromthe following instructions, the respondent No.2 sought[three][ weeks’][ time]for filing counter affidavit. Since August, 2024, no[counter][ affidavit][ has]been filed. The instructions are briefly as follows;Pleader for Services - I, submitted written instructions of the respondentNo.2, vide Lr.No.X2/28971/1994,dated 28.08.2024, wherein, apart fromthe following instructions, the respondent No.2 sought[three][ weeks’][ time]for filing counter affidavit. Since August, 2024, no[counter][ affidavit][ has]been filed. The instructions are briefly as follows; “...vide C &I.G.’sProceedingNo.X2/28971/1994,dated28.10.2009, the D.I.G. (R & S), Visakhapatnam was appointedas regular inquiryofficer (R.E.O.) and the D.I.G. (R & S),Eluru, was appointed as presenting officer.

The R.E.O. has submitted report vide Lr.No.E1/483/2008,dated13.11.2009andthechargesframedagainstthepetitioner are held proved.

The report of the R.E.O. along with the connected materialwassubmittedtothegovernmentvideC&I.G.’sLr.No.X2/28971/1994,dated16.12.2009,asthestategovernment is the competent authority for imposing penalty to the petitioner whoisin the cadre of District Registrar (onleave).

Thegovernment,vide memoNo.6488A/ig-VI(1)/2010-1,dated21.04.2010,afterexaminingthematterindetail,provisionally decided to impose one of the major punishmentsagainst the petitioner on the charges made against[her][ under]Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules,1991, based on the analysis and findings of the inquiry[officer]and the petitioner was directed to submit her representation,ifany in the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner submittedherrepresentationtothe governmenton23.06.2010andthesame wassubmittedtothe governmentvide C &I.G.’sLr.No.X2/28971/1994, dated 20.07.2010.

Thepetitioner submittedher representationstating“thatthere is no ban on registration of ‘Grama Kantam’ and[that][ the]other Sub-Registrars accepting registrations of the[same”.]Inthis regard, the government requested the C& I.G. to[conform]the above issue. The C & I.G.’s Lr.No.X2/28971/1994,[dated]23.08.2010, submitted that there are different types[of][ Grama]Kantam, some are alienable others are not alienable,[which]will be decided by the revenue authorities concerned.If theGrama Kantamis not alienable, the properties willnot beregistered.

ThegovernmentvideMemoNo.6488A/ig.ll(1)/2010-10,dated 17.06.2016, requested to furnish specific remarksonthereportoftheDistrictRegistrar,Vijayawada,dated01.07.2015 and also requested clarify whether Grama Kantam^

lands can be registeredin acreage basisor square yards.Accordingly, the District Registrar, Vijaywada has[submitted]report vide Lr.No.G1/1003/2009, dated 28.03.2019 and[the][ file]is under process.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delayitself is a ground sufficient to grant the relief prayed in the petition.itself is a ground sufficient to grant the relief prayed in the petition.

7. In thelight of the above decision, when the factsinthis casenoted above are examined, thereis inordinate delay at every stage.Even now, there is no progress without any reason at all. The petitioneris not alleged or shown to be responsible for the delay. As such, thepetitioner is entitled to the relief.noted above are examined, thereis inordinate delay at every stage.Even now, there is no progress without any reason at all. The petitioneris not alleged or shown to be responsible for the delay. As such, thepetitioner is entitled to the relief.

8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed[for.][ No][ costs.]

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand[vacated.]

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand[closed.]

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- M SRINIVASASSISTANT REGISTRAR

'SECTION OFrlCEt^

To

1. OneCC to SRI. AMARA RAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICESI ,High Court Of Andhra[Pradesh.][OUT][OUT]

3. Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/05/2025

ORDER

WP(AT).No.1736of2021

oi'/x’-p'viltJJ0 7 JIJLo\'m★

THE WRIT PETITION IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS