IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT lo THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN^^op^ WRIT PETITION NO: 7355 OF 2025 Between: V. Pothu Raju, S/o. V. Krishnarjuna, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Deputy Superintendent of Police (retired). Special Branch, Guntur, Guntur District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police (D.G.P), State of A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the may nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide Charge Memo T.E.C.No.544 of 2013 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper. contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court apart frorh violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conclude the departmental m proceedings in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.91 General (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022. r Administration lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide Charge Memo T.E.C.No.544 of 2013 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. S. N. SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER pb^'i APHC010138662025 j./ THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7355/2025 r IN [3506] &-i<S Jifev; MONDAY, THE Between; ...PETITIONER V. Pothu Raju AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.TS N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1.GP FOR SERVICES I ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide Charge Memo T.E.C.No.544 of 2013 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court apart from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and pass such other order or orders....” Heard Sri T.S.N Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner 2. and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 3. The petitioner while working as Inspector of Police, Ongole I Town Police Station, during the period 01.07.2010 to 08.09.2010, based on certain irregularities, in respect of one wine shop and in abuse of official position said to have received certain amounts, a charge memo was issued vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.544 of 2013 on the file the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad. E)(cept registering the aforesaid proceedings, there is no progress and the same was pending for quite some time. Thereafter, the very Tribunal came to be abolished and all the 3 matters have been transferred to Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI), where the proceedings presently lie pending. As the said case is pending, and there is no progress, it is causing grave prejudice, agony, pain and suffering to the petitioner. Now, even the petitioner retired from the service on 31.05.2024. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 01.11.2018, fixing time-limit for early completion of departmental inquiries. In the said G.O., instructions were issued for expeditious completion of inquiries viz., three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases. Since the inquiries, pending against the petitioner, are not completed, the above writ petition is filed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, which was constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil 4. Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 was abolished by Ordinance No.6 of 2022, dated 16.8.2022. The same was published in Part IV-B of the Extraordinary Gazette of Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant to repeal of the Tribunal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, General Administration (Services-E) Department, dated 18.8.2022 transferring all the cases pending on the file of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to the Commissionerate of 'S.-. 4 Inquiries (COI), to continue the pending proceedings and to dispose of it, in accordance with the statutory rules. Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an employee, are to be completed within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases as per G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 01.11.2008. In the case on hand, the petitioner is facing the charges of corrupt motive, abuse of official position and receiving of amount, since 2013 and charges framed in the year 2018. 5. were In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan\ the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under; 6. “The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the 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 particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. 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. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it....” 7. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board^, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: (1998) 4 see 154 5 “11 The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.” In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha^ the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that before the charge sheet is quashed, this Court must consider the gravity of the charge and all other relevant factors before coming to the said conclusion. more more 8. In view of the above expressions, employees cannot work under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary proceedings. If no 9. time schedules are fixed for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.679 will be frustrated. In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place around 2010 and the case was registered as Tribunal Enquiry Case No.544 of 2013 and no charges were framed so far. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was abolished in the year 2022. There was progress in the inquiries till abolition of the Tribunal and now the 10. no file is transferred to the COI. 2 (2005) 6 see 636 3 (2012) 11 see 565 6 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, the Commissionerate of Inquiries is directed to conclude the inquiries, within a period of six months from today, failing which the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide f Tribunal Enquiry Case No.544 of 2013, which was transferred to the COI, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 18.8.2022, shall stands quashed and if no other inquiry is pending against the petitioner, respondents are directed to release pension and other benefits to the petitioner. 12. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police (D.G.P), State of A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. One CC to Sri T. S. N. Sudhakar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies. ssb r'"- r HIGH COURT f • ■ V- t' t 9 0 DATED:24/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.7355 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS