APHC010151882025 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: 8195/2025 Between: M.K.P. Chakravarthy, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2 W.P.No.8195 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 declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending (two) disciplinary Proceedings vide (1).G.O.Rt.No.201 Labour Employment Training and Factories (IMS and VIG) Department, Dated 7-6-2019 and (2) G.O.Rt.No.171 Labour, Factories, Boilers and IMS Department Dated 11.05.2022, for the incident pertains to the year 2017 the long pendency causing prejudice in getting legitimate service benefits, as illegal arbitrary and in violation of existing specific instructions of the Government, for early conclusion, and as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in P.V.MAHADEVAN Vs. M.D.TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, and accordingly set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 3 months, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 GA (SER.C) Department, dated 1.11.2008, and G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD Dated 12-09-2022, failing which the proceedings deemed to be quashed, in terms of the similar orders passed in W.P.No.23107 of 2024 dated 14.10.2024 and to pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard B.Sree Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 23.06.1999 and subsequently, promoted as Senior Assistant on 25.10.2008 and later as Superintendent on 09.06.2016 and his services in the said category came to be regularized. The petitioner is stated to be eligible for promotion to the post of Administrative 3 W.P.No.8195 of 2025 Officer, as per provisional seniority list prepared vide proceedings in Rc.No.2479955/E2/2024, dated 02.07.2024. Charge Memo-I was issued by G.O.Rt.No.201, Labour Employment Training and Factories (IMS & VIG.) Department, dated 07.06.2019, which relates to the incident of the year 2017, by setting out eight articles of charges. The petitioner submitted statement of defence on 27.06.2019, denying the same. A criminal case also got registered vide FIR No.03/RCO-CIU-ACB/2020 dated 10.06.2020, which is stated to be pending investigation and no charge sheet filed as on today. Later, Charge Memo-II was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.171 Labour, Factories, Boilers and IMS (IMS & VIG) Department dated 11.05.2022, with six articles of charges. The petitioner has submitted explanation on 20.05.2022. So far, in both disciplinary proceedings no inquiry officer has been appointed and inquiry is pending. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of pendency of these two departmental proceedings, case of petitioner is not being considered for the purpose of promotion. Besides, pendency of departmental proceedings and undue delay is causing immense hardship. It is also submitted that in view of Government circular Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98, dated 01.07.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services–C) Department dated 01.11.2008, fixing timelines for early completion of departmental proceedings by Commissioner of Inquries, the 4 W.P.No.8195 of 2025 respondents cannot delay the inquiry and ought to have complete the same within the timeline prescribed therein. The aforesaid G.O. stipulates the timeline in simple cases, inquiry should be completed within three weeks and in complicated cases, it should be completed within five to six months. However, even after lapse of almost five years, the respondents have not even appointed Inquiry Officer. Further, in continuation to aforesaid G.O., consolidated instructions were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 reiterating aforesaid timelines. 5. She further placed reliance on 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….” 1 (1998) 4 SCC 154 5 W.P.No.8195 of 2025 6. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board 2, 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 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. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned Assistant Government Pleader contend that respondents are taking steps to conclude the inquiry within reasonable time and does not refute the submission that there was an inordinate delay in completing the inquiry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022. 8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and keeping in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra, the employees cannot work under the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings. Despite fixing of timeline schedules as per the aforesaid G.Os, any further delay would frustrate the very purpose and intent of fixing the timeline for completing the inquiry. As the charges leveled against the petitioner appear to be grave in nature, and considering that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings 2 (2005) 6 SCC 636 6 W.P.No.8195 of 2025 should not affect the petitioner’s career advancement, the petitioner cannot be denied the right to be considered for promotion. 9. Even a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.17246 of 2024, though it was a case of pending inquiry in pursuant to charges, as the inquiry was not completed within the time frame fixed in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 22.09.2022 and in the guise of inquiry, the petitioner therein was not considered for promotion, by following the judgement of Division Bench in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. A.Rajeswara Reddy case issued the following directions: “8. In Government of A.P., vs. A.Rajeswara Reddy1, it was held that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of Government are to be completed within three months in simple cases and in six months in case of complicated cases, as per the policy decision taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008. The Division Bench also directed the concerned Authorities to consider the case of the employee for promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, while upholding the order of the Administrative Tribunal. 9. Case at hand, as referred to supra, though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 29.06.2022, inquiry is not concluded so far. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the judgment referred to supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent of learned counsel on either side at the admission stage, directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion without reference to disciplinary proceedings initiated vide G.O.Rt.No.482, dated 29.06.2022, if the petitioner possesses other requisite qualifications, as per law. No order as to costs.” 7 W.P.No.8195 of 2025 10. Even in the present case, the incident has happened in the year 2017 and disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated in 2019 & 2022. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: “The respondents, without reference and without taking into account or consideration of the charge memos vide by G.O.Rt.No.201, Labour Employment Training and Factories (IMS & VIG.) Department, dated 07.06.2019 and G.O.Rt.No.171 Labour, Factories, Boilers and IMS (IMS & VIG) Department dated 11.05.2022, are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if he is found fit for promotion in accordance with law. Further, the respondents are also directed to complete the inquiry within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands 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 8 W.P.No.8195 of 2025 91 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8195/2025 Date: 01.04.2025 KBN