Telangana High CourtK.Narayana vs The Collector on 5 August, 2020Author:P.Naveen RaoBench:P.Naveen Rao*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\n\n      + WRIT PETITION Nos.18611 of 2017 & 5512 of 2020\n\n                           % 05.08.2020\n\n\nWP No.18611 of 2017:\n\n\n# K.Narayana s/o. Venkata Swamy, Aged about 52 years,\n  Superintendent (Tahsildar), O/o Collectorate, Medak,\n  Medak district.\n                                                     .....Petitioner\n\n      And\n\n$ The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,\n  State of Telangana, Abids, Hyderabad and others.\n\n                                                   .....Respondents\n\n\n! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D. Bala Kishan Rao\n\nCounsel for the Respondents: 1. Learned Govt. Pleader for\n                                Services for the respondents\n\n\n<Gist :\n\n>Head Note:\n\n? Cases referred:\n\n(1995) 3 SCC 134\n(1996) 3 SCC 157\n(2012) 11 SCC 565\n(1995) 2 SCC 570\n(2007) 14 SCC 49\n2019 SCC Online SC 1596\n(2009) 7 SCC 305\n                                                                      PNR,J\n                                                    WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                              5512 of 2020\n                                2\n\n\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA\n\n                             ********\n\n       WRIT PETITION Nos.18611 of 2017 & 5512 of 2020\n\n                        Date:05.08.2020\n\nWP No.18611 of 2017:\n\n\nBetween :\n\nK.Narayana s/o. Venkata Swamy, Aged about 52 years,\nSuperintendent (Tahsildar), O/o Collectorate, Medak,\nMedak district.\n                                                     .....Petitioner\n\n       And\n\nThe Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,\nState of Telangana, Abids, Hyderabad and others.\n\n                                                   .....Respondents\n\n\nJUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                    : 05.08.2020\n\n\n\n             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\n\n\n1.     Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may      :    YES\n       be allowed to see the judgments ?              :\n\n2.     Whether the copies of judgment may be marked :      YES\n       to Law Reporters/Journals                    :\n\n3.     Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to        :    NO\n       See fair Copy of the Judgment ?\n                                                                      PNR,J\n                                                    WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                              5512 of 2020\n                                3\n\n\n\n         HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\n      WRIT PETITION Nos.18611 of 2017 & 5512 of 2020\n\n                        Date:05.08.2020\n\nWP No.18611 of 2017:\n\n\nBetween:\n\nK.Narayana s/o. Venkata Swamy, Aged about 52 years,\nSuperintendent (Tahsildar), O/o Collectorate, Medak,\nMedak district.\n                                                     .....Petitioner\n\n     And\n\nThe Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,\nState of Telangana, Abids, Hyderabad and others.\n\n                                                   .....Respondents\n\n\n\n\nThe Court made the following:\n                                                                       PNR,J\n                                                     WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                               5512 of 2020\n                                     4\n\n\n          HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\n\n      WRIT PETITION Nos.18611 of 2017 & 5512 of 2020\n\n\nCOMMON ORDER:In W.P.No.18611 of 2017, petitioner challenges the charge-\n\nmemo, dated 28.02.2017 and seeks consequential direction to\n\ngrant promotion to the post of Tahsildar, as per the placement\n\nassigned in the panel for the year 2011-12. During the pendency\n\nof above writ petition, Enquiry Officer submitted his report.        Not\n\nsatisfied with the report of the Enquiry Officer, by proceedings\n\ndated 06.11.2019, the District Collector appointed another Enquiry\n\nOfficer to conduct de novo enquiry into the charges leveled against\n\nthe petitioner. In W.P.No.5512 of 2020, petitioner challenges the\n\nsaid order dated 06.11.2019 and seeks further direction that the\n\npetitioner is entitled for promotion as Tahsildar on par with his\n\njuniors by duly finalizing the departmental proceedings based on\n\nthe enquiry report submitted on 31.12.2018. In both Writ\n\nPetitions, petitioner is the same. By this common order these Writ\n\nPetitions are disposed of.2.    To the extent relevant for the issues raised in these two Writ\n\nPetitions, the facts are as under:Petitioner is working as Deputy Tahsildar and is now\n\naspiring for promotion as Tahsildar. According to the petitioner, in\n\nseniority list of Deputy Tahsildars of Medak district, and in the\n\npanel of Deputy Tahsildars, eligible for promotion for the panel\n\nyear 2011-12, his name was shown at Sl.No.20.         In the panel\n\napproved by the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration (CCLA),\n                                                                               PNR,J\n                                                             WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                       5512 of 20205vide      his   reference   No.Ser.II(1)/789/2016,   dated      08.03.2016,\n\npetitioner name was included at Sl.No.149.            In March, 2016,\n\npromotions were made upto the Sl.No.120 in the said approved\n\npanel. During the subsistence of panel approved on 18.03.2016, as\n\na consequence to re-organization of the Revenue Districts,\n\nformation of new Mandals and Revenue Divisions and Districts,\n\n2109 posts of Tahsildars were created. Petitioner claims that he\n\nought to have been granted promotion in those vacancies. On\n\n01.05.2017, orders were issued granting promotion to the\n\npetitioner as Tahsildar and posted as Superintendent in the Office\n\nof the District Collector, Medak, but this promotion was not given\n\neffect.     Petitioner alleges that he was denied promotion on the\n\nground that on 28.02.2017, charge-memo was drawn and\n\ndisciplinary proceedings were initiated. On 20.12.2017, this Court\n\ngranted interim orders directing consideration of the petitioner for\n\npromotion, if he is otherwise eligible, and if there is no prohibition\n\nin consideration of his case for promotion.             On 06.11.2019\n\nproceedings were issued appointing another Enquiry Officer to\n\nconduct de novo enquiry.3.        In these two writ petitions, the grievance of the petitioner is\n\nagainst inordinate delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings,\n\nnot finalizing the disciplinary proceedings based on the report of\n\nthe Enquiry Officer, ordering de novo enquiry and on the ground\n\nthat disciplinary proceedings are pending, not granting promotion\n\nto him as per his turn and seeks consequential direction to set\n\naside disciplinary proceedings and to grant promotion on par with\n\nhis juniors with all consequential benefits.PNR,J\n                                                       WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                 5512 of 202064.       Heard Mr. D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for petitioner,\n\nand Mr. N.Ramesh, learned Government Pleader for respondents.\n\n\n5.1.     On the validity of charge-memo, learned counsel for the\n\npetitioner contended that disciplinary proceedings are liable to be\n\nset aside on the sole ground that there was inordinate delay in\n\ninitiation of the disciplinary proceedings. On the alleged incident\n\nof the year 2005, charge-memo was drawn for the first time on\n\n28.02.2017.     Thus, on a stale issue, proceedings were initiated,\n\nafter 12 years, and no justification is shown for such inordinate\n\ndelay.     Learned counsel further submitted that allegation made\n\nagainst the petitioner in the charge-memo is on trivial issue i.e.,\n\nmisplacement of file relating to the disciplinary proceedings\n\ninitiated against Mr. K.E.John Wesly.       According to the learned\n\ncounsel, petitioner has submitted his explanation on 20.03.2017\n\ndenying the allegations; expressly taking the stand that as there\n\nwas heavy work load there was          no occasion to concentrate on\n\nindividual files; that the file was circulated to the higher\n\nauthorities; and that it was not sent back to the section headed by\n\nhim and, therefore, the allegation that he was responsible for\n\nmisplacing the file was erroneous.5.2.     According to the learned counsel, as per the G.O.Ms.No.679\n\ndated 01.11.2008, disciplinary enquiry has to be completed on\n\nsimple allegations, within three months and whenever serious\n\nallegations are made within six months.         In the instant case,\n\nallegation is not serious and therefore ought to have been\n\ncompleted in three months, but they are kept pending for more\n\nthan three years.PNR,J\n                                                           WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                     5512 of 202075.3.   He   would   submit   that       on   due   consideration     of    the\n\nexplanation and on due verification of the records, the Enquiry\n\nOfficer in his report dated 31.12.2018 clearly recorded finding that\n\npetitioner was not responsible for the alleged charge and that he\n\ndid not misplace the file. He would submit that on trivial issue\n\nand more so when the Enquiry Officer clearly recorded a finding\n\nthat the petitioner is not responsible for misplacement of the file,\n\nthere is no justification to continue the disciplinary proceedings,\n\neven assuming, initiation was not erroneous.\n\n\n5.4.   According to the learned counsel, the reason assigned for\n\nordering the de novo enquiry is not sustainable in law. It is also\n\ncontrary to Rules 20 & 21 of the Telangana State Civil Services\n\n(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (Rules, 1991).\n\nAccording to the learned counsel for petitioner, the disciplinary\n\nauthority can order de novo enquiry only if he is satisfied that the\n\nproceedings were not properly conducted or procedure required by\n\nthe Rules, 1991 were not observed by the Enquiry Officer.                  The\n\nDisciplinary Authority erred in holding that the Enquiry Officer has\n\nnot stated whether the charges are proved or not. This observation\n\nof the disciplinary authority is contrary to the report of the Enquiry\n\nOfficer and the reasons assigned therein are not in accordance\n\nwith the provisions in Rule 20(2) of the Rules, 1991.\n\n\n5.5.   Learned counsel for petitioner further contended that even\n\nassuming that the disciplinary proceedings were validly initiated\n\nand continued and there is no inordinate delay in conclusion of the\n\ndisciplinary proceedings, denial of promotion to the petitioner as\n\nper the recommendations of the DPC, approved by the competent\n                                                                        PNR,J\n                                                      WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                5512 of 20208authority, was erroneous. The panel was approved in March, 2016\n\nand the panel was operated by giving promotions to 120 persons\n\nincluded in the panel. On the date of approval of panel, effecting\n\nthe promotions and when the new posts were created, disciplinary\n\nproceedings were not initiated against the petitioner and they were\n\nset in motion only on 28.02.2017.          Therefore, deferring the\n\npetitioner claim for promotion on the ground of initiation of\n\ndisciplinary proceedings subsequently is clearly erroneous and\n\nillegal.   He would therefore submit that denial of promotion when\n\nit was due was illegal and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power.6.     The learned Government Pleader would submit that due to\n\nwillful conduct of the petitioner taking action against Mr Wesley\n\ngot delayed. Deliberately petitioner misplaced the file. As soon as\n\nmatter came to the notice of the disciplinary authority, action was\n\ninitiated against petitioner. He would therefore submit that there\n\nwas no delay.     He would submit that as a custodian of official\n\nrecords, misplacing the file in his custody is a grave misconduct.\n\nHe would further submit that enquiry report is not complete unless\n\nthe enquiry officer records his findings. As no findings are recorded\n\nby the enquiry officer, disciplinary authority has to order for fresh\n\nenquiry.7.     Following issues arise for consideration:i) Whether disciplinary proceedings are vitiated on the\nground of delay in initiation and/or conclusion ?ii) Whether the decision to order de novo enquiry is within\nthe competence of the disciplinary authority ?PNR,J\n                                                        WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                  5512 of 20209iii) Whether the denial of promotion to the petitioner on the\nground of pending disciplinary proceedings is legal ? andiv) Whether petitioner was illegally denied from joining and\nworking in the promotion post on the ground that disciplinary\nproceedings were      initiated by the time he was granted promotion\nand therefore not effecting promotion was valid ?\n\n\n\nISSUE (i):8.     The relationship between employer and employee is based on\n\ntrust and confidence.        Apart from absolute loyalty, employer\n\nexpects employee to be honest, truthful and hardworking.                 He\n\nrewards employee who fulfills his criteria, encourages him by\n\nproviding him additional financial incentive, elevation of status,\n\nhigher responsibilities, so on. At the same time, he cannot tolerate\n\ninsubordination, misbehavior, corruption, disloyalty and poor\n\noutput. Whenever these aspects come to light, employer would\n\ninitiate     disciplinary   action   and   visit   appropriate       penal\n\nconsequences which may be minor or major.           Depending on the\n\nnature of misconduct alleged he may also lodge complaint with the\n\nPolice.    Conduct of the employee may not be confined to four\n\ncorners of the employment and employer may monitor behaviour of\n\nthe employee outside the employment which may reflect on the\n\npersonality of the employee or impact his performance.9.     From the stand point of employee as long as he is in the\n\ngood books of his employer he will have smooth sailing.        Problems\n\nwould arise only when employer loses confidence or develops\n\ndistrust or apprehends of misconduct.         When a misconduct is\n\nalleged employee is bound to face disciplinary action and in a given\n                                                                                PNR,J\n                                                              WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                        5512 of 202010case criminal proceedings.          If that stage arises, in addition to\n\nseveral other aspects, his grievance would be two fold: 1) employer\n\nis harassing him for a minor lapse/ incident, that took place long\n\nago; 2)   even if allegation is proved, if concluded within a time\n\nframe, it may result in minor punishment such as censure,\n\nwarning, withholding of increment etc., and he would undergo\n\nsuch punishment with humility and carryon his work, but delay in\n\nconclusion would have more serious consequences, intended or\n\nunintended including depriving promotion, differing financial\n\nbenefits/ in case of retired employee denying retirement benefits,\n\netc.   He may also have a grievance that delay in initiation and\n\nconclusion, causes grave prejudice to him in defending against\n\nallegations; difficulty in securing evidence, oral or documentary.10.    Telangana State Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 (CCA\n\nRules) deal with all aspects of disciplinary proceedings against an\n\nemployee.      The Rules prescribe elaborate procedure to conduct\n\ndisciplinary proceedings from the stage of initiation till passing of\n\nfinal orders, preferring of appeals and revisions and also prescribes\n\npunishments that can be imposed.               Rule 20 of the Rules also\n\nprescribes     time   line   from   stage   to   stage   in   the      enquiry.\n\nAdministrative instructions stipulate time line to conclude the\n\ndisciplinary     proceedings.       However,     the     Rules      and       the\n\nadministrative instructions are silent on time frame to initiate\n\ndisciplinary    action   on    alleged     delinquency    against       serving\n\nemployee, whereas certain limitations are imposed against retired\n\nemployees in Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Thus,\n                                                                                PNR,J\n                                                              WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                        5512 of 202011there is no statutory embargo on when to initiate disciplinary\n\nproceedings.11.    Invariably    there   is   delay   in   initiation    of    disciplinary\n\nproceedings.     Initiation takes months or years from the date of\n\nincident and so also conclusion.          Delay in initiation can be for\n\ngenuine reasons.         The incident may come to light            much later;\n\nmany employees are involved in the same delinquency; lot of time\n\nis    consumed      in   gathering   information;    many         times    intra-\n\ndepartmental correspondence consumes more time; when alleged\n\ndelinquency      involves    employees    belong    to      more    than      one\n\ndepartment/one unit/one disciplinary authority processing itself\n\nconsumes lot of time. Further, on an alleged misconduct, if,\n\nsimultaneously, disciplinary action and criminal prosecution is set\n\nin motion, disciplinary authority may wait for completion of\n\ninvestigation by Police before he would decide to proceed or\n\ndiffer/drop the disciplinary action. But, in many instances, it is\n\ntardy and lethargic approach of the concerned authorities that\n\ncauses delay in setting in motion the disciplinary action. Many\n\ntimes, employees allege that just about the time he is due for\n\npromotion, disciplinary action is set in motion only to deprive him\n\npromotion or just about the time of retirement to hold up his\n\nretirement benefits.12.    Though proceedings may have been initiated immediately\n\nbut they are dragged on for months together / years together. This\n\nmay happen because several employees of same Department/\n\ndifferent departments are involved; documents and witnesses are\n\nmore; employee(s) do not cooperate or litigate; frequent change of\n                                                                          PNR,J\n                                                        WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                  5512 of 202012enquiry officers;   matters entrusted to tribunal for disciplinary\n\nproceedings or Commissioner of enquiries, but they do not\n\nfunction. Many times just to harass the employee proceedings are\n\nkept in the cold storage.13.   One other aspect on which employees agitate is delay in\n\ndisposal of disciplinary proceedings and in the meantime ignoring\n\nthe employee for promotion and/or not granting other service\n\nbenefits. Though the Government, by way of administrative\n\ninstructions, prescribed three months to complete enquiry in case\n\nof petty allegations, and six months in case of grave allegations,\n\nthis time line is never adhered to and disciplinary proceedings are\n\nkept pending for months together/years together. Many a time the\n\ndelay is attributable to employer.14.   Thus, more often than not employees knock the doors of this\n\nCourt underArticle 226of the Constitution of India against delay\n\nin initiation and/or continuation and denial of service benefits on\n\nthe   ground   of   pending    disciplinary   proceedings,     such       as\n\npromotion, increments, financial upgradation, retirement benefits,\n\nas the case may be. Volume of cases and the decisions in those\n\ncases reflect the litigative gamit of this branch of service disputes.15.   There are two competing claims.         On the one side is the\n\nemployer's desire to enforce discipline, not to dole out benefits of\n\nelevation in status etc., or post retirement benefits as the case may\n\nbe, if he commits a misconduct in the past.             On the other\n\nspectrum is the concern of employee in involving him in\n\ndisciplinary proceedings/in continuing him under the cloud for\n                                                                                 PNR,J\n                                                               WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                         5512 of 202013past misconduct, without conducting/concluding proceedings and\n\nwithout affording opportunity to defend himself and depriving him\n\nservice benefits to which he is legitimately entitled.               Whenever\n\nsuch matters come up before the Court, the Court is not only\n\nrequired to consider these competing claims but also look into the\n\naspect of public interest, vis-à-vis allegations of misconduct,\n\nhaving regard to public trust doctrine in public employment, and\n\nin a given case adopt balancing process.16.     Per se disciplinary proceedings cannot be said as vitiated\n\nonly on the ground of delay in initiation. It all depends on facts of\n\na given case.      However, if the delay is long the burden is on\n\nemployer to explain reasons for delay.17.     On both aspects, i.e., delay in initiation of disciplinary\n\nproceedings and delay in conclusion, we are not in virgin territory.\n\nThe precedent decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down\n\nwell lit path leading to appreciation of the issue in right\n\nperspective. Suffice to note that precedent law, while emphasizing\n\nspeedy disposal of disciplinary proceedings, leaves it to the writ\n\nCourt to assess the issue depending upon the facts of a given case.18.     At this stage it is expedient to consider precedent decisions.\n\n\n18.1.    Whenever,     grave    allegations       are     made,      such        as\n\nembezzlement/misappropriation,            falsification   of   records,       etc.,\n\ndepartmental proceedings need not be set aside only on the ground\n\nof    delay   in   initiation   or   conclusion         (Deputy     Registrar,\n                                                                                    PNR,J\n                                                                  WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                            5512 of 202014Co-operative Society, Faizabad Vs Sachindra Nath Pandey1andSecretary to Government, Prohibition & Excise Dept Vs\n\nL.Srinivasan2.Disciplinary proceedings are not liable to be\n\nquashed on the ground that they were initiated at a belated stage\n\nand could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless delay\n\ncreates prejudice to the delinquent employee (Ministry of Defence\n\nVs Prabhash Chander3).18.2.InState of Punjab and others Vs Chaman Lal Goyal4while emphasizing the need to conduct disciplinary proceedings,\n\nsoon after discovery of irregularities, the Hon'ble Supreme Court\n\nobserved that;"9. .......If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the Court may\n        well interfere and quash the charges. But, how long a delay is too\n        long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if\n        such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in\n        defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever\n        such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing\n        for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of\n        circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a\n        process of balancing. ......"18.3.InGovernment of A.P., Vs V.Appala Swamy5the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court laid down parameters when court may accept plea\n\nof delay against continuing disciplinary proceedings, Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court held as under :"12. So far as the question of delay in concluding the\n        departmental proceedings as against a delinquent officer is\n        concerned, in our opinion, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down\n        therefor. Each case must be determined on its own facts. The1(1995) 3 SCC 1342(1996) 3 SCC 1573(2012) 11 SCC 5654(1995) 2 SCC 5705(2007) 14 SCC 49\n                                                                                         PNR,J\n                                                                       WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                                 5512 of 202015principles upon which a proceeding can be directed to be quashed\n          on the ground of delay are:(1) where by reason of the delay, the employer condoned the\n          lapses on the part of the employee;(2) where the delay caused prejudice to the employee.Such a case of prejudice, however, is to be made out by the\n          employee before the inquiry officer."18.4.InUnion of India Vs Udai Bhan Singh6, the Hon'ble\n\nSupreme Court reviewed precedent decision on delay in initiation\n\nand conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. Hon'ble Supreme Court\n\nheld, the aspect of delay must be considered in the context of\n\nadmitted facts (paragraph 17).18.5.InSecretary, Forest Department and Others Vs. Abdur\n\nRasul       Choudhary7,        the      Hon'ble    Supreme          Court    succinctly\n\nexplained when Court should interfere.                       Employee was served\n\ncharge memo dated 13.8.1987.                       Allegations were on excess\n\npayment to contractor for personal gain and financial loss to\n\nGovernment and falsification of accounts.                     Employee retired on\n\n31.3.1995.         He filed O A No. 3963 of 1999 praying to direct\n\nrespondents to drop the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of\n\ndelay. The Tribunal did not agree to grant the prayer to drop the\n\ndisciplinary         proceedings,        but      directed     to     complete         the\n\ndepartmental enquiry within six months by its order dated\n\n1.8.2003. Challengingthe said decision, he preferred writ petition\n\nin the High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition. One\n\nof the issues considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is, whether\n\nthe delay in completing the domestic enquiry proceedings would be\n\nfatal to the proceedings.?62019 SCC Online SC 15967(2009) 7 SCC 305\n                                                                                   PNR,J\n                                                                 WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                           5512 of 20201618.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held:"16. The next issue is with regard to delay in concluding\n       disciplinary proceedings. In our view the delay in concluding\n       the domestic enquiry proceedings is not fatal to the proceedings.\n       It depends on the facts and circumstances    of   each   case.   The\n       unexplained protracted delay on the part of the employer may be\n       one of the circumstances in not permitting the employer to\n       continue with the disciplinary enquiry proceedings. At the same\n       time, if the delay is explained satisfactorily then the proceedings\n       should be permitted to continue."      (emphasis supplied)19.   In the case on hand, the substance of the allegation against\n\nthe petitioner is that disciplinary file of another employee was\n\nmisplaced by petitioner in the year 2006 when he was working as\n\nSenior Assistant. On the said allegation, charge memo was drawn\n\non 28.02.2017, i.e., more than eleven years after the incident.\n\nEven after three years, the proceedings are not concluded.20.   The gravemen of the charge is, on a request made by the\n\nSiddipet District Collector to furnish original records pertaining to\n\ndisciplinary case against ex-Land Acquisition Officer by name\n\nK.E.John Wesly, while verifying the record of the A3 section of the\n\nCollectorate, it was noticed that as Senior Assistant of A3 section\n\npetitioner received the UO note of LA Section on 17.05.2005\n\nrecorded in personal register for the years 2005 and 2006 but\n\nphysically file was missing and from the year 2007 onwards the file\n\nwas not traceable. It is therefore alleged that petitioner misused\n\nhis official position and misplaced the file with mala fide intention.\n\nTherefore, the disciplinary case against Mr. Wesly could not be\n\nconcluded.PNR,J\n                                                      WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                5512 of 20201721.   From the Annexure - I of the Charge Memo, it appears that\n\ncertain Land Acquisition OPs. were not effectively contested by\n\nconcerned staff and therefore on 14.05.2005, the Medak District\n\nCollector informed the Government that Mr. Wesly was responsible\n\nand disciplinary action should be taken against him.                   On\n\n23.07.1999, the Commissioner for Social Welfare requested to\n\ninitiate disciplinary action against Mr. Wesley.22.   In substance, alleging that a particular file was misplaced by\n\npetitioner while he was working in the 'C' Section of the\n\nCollectorate in the years 2005 and 2006, Charge Memo was drawn\n\non 28.02.2017.     The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sangareddy, was\n\nappointed as enquiry officer.      During the enquiry, petitioner\n\ninformed that file is available in A3 section.      The incumbent\n\n'C' section Assistant appeared before the enquiry officer and stated\n\nthat file is available. Apart from other aspects, petitioner has also\n\npleaded before the enquiry officer that he circulated the file on\n\n01.06.2005, was returned to section on 15.07.2005 from the Joint\n\nCollector and file was handed over to the Office Superintendent for\n\ndiscussion with Joint Collector; discussion took place and he has\n\nrecorded in the file as a note on the discussion, but file was not\n\nreturned to the Section. He expressed his inability to say anything\n\nmore after such a long time.     On going through the record, the\n\nenquiry officer found whatever is stated by the petitioner is born\n\nout of record.23.   The proceedings of the Commissioner for Social Welfare were\n\ndrawn on 23.07.1999 requesting the competent authority to take\n\ndisciplinary action against Mr. Wesley. The counter-affidavit is\n                                                                         PNR,J\n                                                       WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                 5512 of 202018blissfully silent as to why there was delay in initiating of action\n\nagainst Mr. Wesley and what transpired between 1999 to 2005 and\n\n2005 to 2017 and what is the stage of the action. It appears to be\n\na case of covering up the lapses on the part of concerned persons\n\nin taking action against Mr. Wesley, by throwing the blame on\n\npetitioner. It appears, no effort was made to trace the file before\n\ninitiating action against petitioner, whereas the finding of enquiry\n\nofficer would show file was very much available in A3 section.24.   Be that as it may, allegation was file was not traceable, but it\n\nwas traced and available in A3 Section. Charge memo does not\n\nelaborate on allegation of the mala fide intention.      There is no\n\nallegation of collusion of petitioner with Mr. Wesley to escape\n\ndisciplinary action.    That being so, nothing remains in the\n\ndisciplinary action.25.   There is no end in site to the petitioner.      Adding to the\n\nmisery of facing disciplinary action after 10 years, even though\n\nenquiry officer finds that file is available in A3 Section, merely\n\nbecause the enquiry officer has not recorded as to whether charge\n\nis proved or not, the disciplinary authority resorts to hold de novo\n\nenquiry by appointing another enquiry officer. Apart from the fact\n\nthat no such power is traceable to CCA Rules, no reasons are\n\nassigned to take such a decision and prolong the agony to the\n\npetitioner. Further, even if what is stated is accepted, it is minor\n\nirregularity.   The disciplinary authority has ample power to deal\n\nwith the situation and for this minor lapse that enquiry officer did\n\nnot record his conclusion, there is no need to subject the petitioner\n                                                                        PNR,J\n                                                      WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                                5512 of 202019to undergo the rigmarole of full fledged enquiry, that too after\n\nfifteen years.26.   In the counter-affidavit, no reasons are assigned for the\n\ndelay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. When disciplinary\n\naction is set in motion after 10 years, the competent authority has\n\nto explain clearly the reasons for delay.    Certainly ten years is\n\nunreasonably long period on a trivial issue, more so when there is\n\nno allegation of collusion by the petitioner with Mr. Wesley to delay\n\ndisciplinary action against him. Having regard to the chronology of\n\nevents and relevant aspects noted above, the conclusion is\n\nirresistible that the entire action smacks of arbitrary exercise of\n\npower and vindictive.27.   Petitioner succeeds on the 1st issue.        The disciplinary\n\nproceedings against petitioner are set aside and the Writ Petition\n\nNo.18611 of 2017 is allowed.          Petitioner is entitled to all\n\nconsequential benefits including promotion as Tahsildar from the\n\ndate of promotion of his junior.      In view of the judgment in\n\nW.P.No.18611 of 2017, no further orders are required to be made\n\nin W.P.No.5512 of 2020 and is accordingly disposed of. In view of\n\nthe decision on the 1st issue, no findings are recorded on other\n\nissues. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.___________________________\n                                         JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\nDate: 05.08.2020\nKkm/Rds/KH/tvk\n\nNote: L R Copy to be marked-- YES\n                                                              PNR,J\n                                            WP Nos.18611 of 2017 &\n                                                      5512 of 202020HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO\n\n\n\n\n     WRIT PETITION Nos.18611 of 2017 & 5512 of 2020\n\n                    Date: 05.08.2020\nkkm/rds/kh/tvk