STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus N. RADHAKISHAN

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 07-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
N. RADHAKISHAN 
APRIL 7, 1998 
[SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963: Rule 19. 
c 
Departmental Enquiry-Delay in conclusion of-Not explained-
.Proceedings-Vitiating of-Promotion-Effect of-Employee recommended 
for promotion by DPC during pendency of charge memo-Subsequently, two 
charge memos served on employee-Held: No pre-determined principles 
applicable to all cases and all situations can be laid down-Each case has 
to be examined taking into consideration all relevant factors-Court has to D 
balance between clean and honest administration and the prejudice that 
delay causes to the employee-Further unexplained delay in concluding the 
proceeding itself causes prejudice to the employee-In the circumstances of 
the case, employee directed to be promoted on the basis of recommendations 
of DPC-Two subsequent charge memos also directed to be ignored for the E 
purpose of promotion-Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, 
Rr. 20, 21 and 45. 
Departmental 'Enquiry-Charges-General in nature-Framing a/-
Against several employee of Municipal Corporation for unauthorised 
construction with their collusion-On basis of report of Anti Corruption F 
Bureau-All charges in verbatim without particularising role of each 
employee-Held: Such generalisation of charges, deprecated. 
Department Enquiry - Charge memo-Issue of fresh charge memos-
Charge memo issued in 1987 under old rules-Enquiry Officer appointed one G 
after the other but no progress made-Subsequently, two charge memos 
issued in 1995 under new Rules without cancelling the earlier one-New 
Rules provided for continua'1CI! of proceedings initiated under old Rules-
He/d: Issue of new charge memos did not causes any prejudice to the delinquent 
employee because previous enquiry did not make any progress-Hence, 
initiation of fresh proceedings without cancelling the previous one, only an H 
693 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A irregularity and not an illegality. 
The respondent was working as Assistant Town Planner in a Municipal 
Corporation. The Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau sent a report 
dated 7-11-1987 to the State Government about the irregularities and 
unauthorised constructions in multi-storied complexes in collusion with 
B Municipal authorities. 
On the basis of the aforesaid report a charge memo dated 12-12-1987 
was served on the respondent and ten others, all in verbatim without 
particularising the role of each employee, under Rule 19 of the Andhra 
C Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963. Although several enquiry officers 
were appointed one after the other no progress was made in the enquiry. 
There was no valid explanation for the delay. However, without cancelling the 
earlier charge memo a fresh charge memo dated 31-7-1995 was served on 
the respondent on the ground that in the meantime the Andhra Pradesh Civil 
Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 had come into force. Out of four charges in this 
D new charge memo the respondent was not involved in three charges. During 
E 
the pendency of the new charge memo the respondent was recommended for 
~ 
promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Subsequently, 
two more charge memo~ dated 27-10-1995 and 1-6-1996 were served on the 
respondent and in spite of the recommendations of the DPC the respondent 
wa:i not promoted. 
Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an application before the State 
Administrative Tribunal which quashed the memo dated 31-7-1995 and 
directed that the respondent be promoted on the basis of the recommendations 
of the DPC without taking into consideration the subsequent two charge 
F memos. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD : 1.1. It is not possible to lay down any pre-determined principles 
applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding 
G the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary 
proceedings are to be terminated, each case has to be examined on the facts 
and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court 
has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weigh 
them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration 
that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay 
H particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. 
STATE v.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.