12 Yrs Delay In Issuing Charge Memo, Disciplinary Authority More Focussed On Finding Of Guilt: AP High Court Grants Relief To Staff Nurse

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside disciplinary proceedings stretched over a period of 12 years against a staff nurse holding that none of the rules laid down under the AP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule 1991 were followed, and it seemed like the disciplinary authority had been more anxious to hold the accused guilty of the charges contrary to the facts and circumstances and evidence.

The Order was passed by Justice Venkateshwaralu Nimmagadda in a writ petition filed challenging the orders passed by the District and Medical Health Officer imposing a punishment of two annual grade incriments with cumulative effects and a secondary proceedings to recover INR27,850/-.

The Staff nurse during her service in the year 2003 was asked to manage a pharmacy and when time came for her to pass on the responsibility to her successor, it was apparent that some items were missing and no log had been maintained.

The Bench noted that section 20 of APCS(CCA) Rules stipulates how a disciplinary proceeding is to be conducted. It stipulates that the charge must be specific, the accused officer should be supplied with all essential documents so as to be able to examine the documents and put up a case and finally the disciplinary proceedings are to be concluded within 6 months.

However, none of the above mentioned rules were implemented by the District Health Officer while conducting the proceedings.

The Bench held that the charge must be specific and definite.

"On perusal of the material on record, it appears that the charge framed against the petitioner pursuant to the charge memo is not specific, definite and properly descripted and it is in general in nature with omnibus allegations relating to her entire period of service at particular station i.e. Ubalanka Primary Health Centre for the period from 1997 to 2009, such a charge cannot be enquired and which is contrary to Rule 20(3)(i) of APCS(CCA) Rules, 1991."

It was contended before the bench by the respondents authorities that the petitioner was provided with an opportunity of hearing and only upon hearing the case of the petitioner the final inquiry was ordered.

The Bench noted that the accused officer merely submitting her response to the enquiry would not be deemed sufficient notice. Adding to that, it was observed that despite the petitioner putting forward her case, after the preliminary enquiry was conducted, the proceedings were not concluded and the final inquiry was called for abruptly.

"As per Rule 20 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, the Respondents shall furnish documents as well as enquiry report calling for any explanation or objections against the said report. But in the case in hand the authorities neither furnished the report or documents nor observed principles of natural justice as required in compliance of Rule 20 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 and straightway issued notice. regarding imposing major punishment is contrary to the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 and vitiates the manner and method of conducting entire disciplinary proceedings."

It was furthermore it was observed by the Bench that no documents were served upon the petitioner because no documents were collected by the investigating officers while conducting the enquiry which revealed that the officials were more anxious to hold the office guilty rather than collect evidence.

"Moreover, the disciplinary authority seems to have been more anxious to hold the guilty of the charges against the petitioner contrary to the facts and circumstances and evidence and also APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991."

The Bench also noted that the charge memo was issued to the petitioner in 2015, 12 years after the disciplinary proceedings were initiated and curiously the petitioner was imposed a double punishment the first being in 2018 and the second in 2019.

This was held to be against the principles enshrined under Article 22 (double jeopardy).

"The imposition of major punishment and also order for recovery proceedings for the same offence is come under the principle of double jeopardy as narrated under Article 22 of the Constitution ofIndia and liable to be set aside."

Lastly, the bench while setting aside the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent punishments held that as per the rules disciplinary proceedings are to be concluded within a spam of 6 months, failing which they would be vitiated.

"Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by Respondent No.3 in Rc.No.875/R2A/2020 dated 20.03.2018 and the proceedings in Rc.No.875/R2A/2010, dated 14.07.2020 and also the order passed by Respondent No.2 in Rc.No.4781/E4-C/2018, dated 03.07.2019 are hereby set-aside. Further, the Respondents are directed to grant all consequential and monetary benefits including promotion without reference to the subject charges, if otherwise she is eligible. There shall be no order as to costs."

Case no.: WP: 24173 of 2020

Counsel for petitioner: Arrabolu Sai Naveen

Counsel for Respondents: GP for services I

Click Here To Read/Download Order