APHC010148092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8163/2025 Between: M Roop Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VADAPALLI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 W.P.No.8163 of 2025 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 impugned Charge Memo issued through G.O.Rt.No.449 Revenue (Vigilance.IV) Department dated 23.05.2024 in view of issuing invalid charges, delay and laches in conducting the disciplinary proceedings within the stipulated time as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD dated 12.09.2022 and in not considering the representation dated 09.01.2025 of the petitioner submitted to the Government for dropping the charges as illegal, arbitrary, bad under law and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently quash and set aside the impugned Charge Memo issued in G.O.Rt.No.449 Revenue (Vigilance.IV) Department dated 23.05.2024 as bad under law and to grant all consequential service benefits that would arise to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Sri M.Roop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 3. The petitioner while working as Prohibition and Excise Constable, on 17.03.2015, the ACB authorities conducted raid in the Office of Superintendent Prohibition & Excise Chittoor. In pursuant to which, Crime No.05/RCT-TCCT/2015 came to be registered against the Superintendent on the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe. The person, against whom the main charge has been levied, died on 19.05.2017. In view of the same, proceedings against him got abated, and the Government issued a memo dated 13.03.2020 3 W.P.No.8163 of 2025 to that effect. The petitioner was issued charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.782, Revenue (Vigilance.IV) Department, dated 25.08.2023, with a single charge that he, in abuse of his official position, received amount from Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Chittoor, i.e., P.Sesh Rao. The petitioner has submitted explanation on 07.12.2023 refuting the said allegations. The petitioner has also taken stand that in view of death of Superintendent, who is prime accused, no purpose will serve in proceeding with the disciplinary action and more so, he will not be in a position to cross-examine the deceased. Though the petitioner submitted explanation, the inquiry authority constituted under G.O.Rt.No.449, Revenue (Vigilance.IV) Department, dated 23.05.2024, has not taken any further steps to conclude the inquiry. As the said case is pending, and there is no progress, it is causing grave prejudice, agony, pain and suffering to the petitioner, besides affecting his prospects in the department and advantages in the career. 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. 4 W.P.No.8163 of 2025 4. 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. 5. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “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….” 6. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board2, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “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 more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony 1 (1998) 4 SCC 154 2 (2005) 6 SCC 636 5 W.P.No.8163 of 2025 and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more 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.” 7. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha3, 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. 8. In view of the above expressions, employees cannot work under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary proceedings. If no time schedules are fixed for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.679 will be frustrated. 9. In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place in the year 2015. Though Crime No.05/RCT-TCCT/2015 came to be registered against the Superintendent, in view of death of said person, criminal proceedings got abated. For the incident happened in the year 2015, the respondents have issued charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.782, Revenue (Vigilance.IV) Department, dated 25.08.2023, which is stated to be pending. Inspite of appointing inquiry officer, there is no substantive progress. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, the respondents are directed to conclude the inquiries, within a period of four months from today, 3 (2012) 11 SCC 565 6 W.P.No.8163 of 2025 failing which the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.782, Revenue (Vigilance.IV) Department, dated 25.08.2023, shall stands quashed. 11. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 01.04.2025 KBN 7 W.P.No.8163 of 2025 78 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8163/2025 Date: 01.04.2025 KBN