APHC010199772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 10255/2025 Between: D V G Raju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 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 a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide TEC.No.186 of 2013 dated 03.11.2017 against the petitioner as Illegal arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of instructions issued In G.O.Ms.No.679 GA (Ser-C) Department dated 01.11.2008 and consequently set aside the proceedings in TEC.No.186 of 2013 dated 03.11.2017 and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 3. Petitioner while working as Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kothavalasa, raids were conducted by ACB on all the liquor shops and their offices during the months of December, 2011 and January, 2012, in pursuance to which proceedings came to be initiated against several officers. Even against petitioner, case was registered as Tribunal Enquiry Case in TEC.No.186 of 2013 and the same was taken up before the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings. Though case was registered in the year 2013, for nearly 5 years, there was no progress and finally charges came to be framed on 03.11.2017. Petitioner was called upon on 20.11.2017 for enquiry and later nearly after 5 years, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.371 & 372 dated 17.04.2023 appointing Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer to inquire into the charges. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued notice dated 06.06.2023 calling upon the 3 petitioner to attend enquiry on 16.06.2023 and since then, there is no progress in the inquiry and the proceedings are unconcluded. It is stated that petitioner was retired from service on 31.01.2025 and in view of pendency of the present proceedings, he was denied the pensional benefits. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader filed Memo No.GAD01- SERVOTDPE/3/2022–SER–E, dated 30.9.2022 directing the Secretary, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, AP, Hyderabad to hand-over all the files, records, computers, furniture and also cash available with the Tribunal to the Registrar, COI, 1st floor, Building No.5, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, through proper and safe transportation including protection from rain, on 01.10.2022. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in fact the files were transferred to COI. 5. 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 were framed in the year 2017. 6. 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 1 (1998) 4 SCC 154 4 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 v. 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 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.” 8. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. 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. 2 (2005) 6 SCC 636 3 (2012) 11 SCC 565 5 9. 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. 10. In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place around 2011-2012 and the cases were registered as Tribunal Enquiry Case Nos.186 of 2013 and charges were framed in the year 2017. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was abolished in the year 2022. There was no progress in the enquiries till abolition of the Tribunal and now the file is transferred to the COI. 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 enquiries, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the charge memos issued to the petitioner vide Tribunal Enquiry Case Nos.186 of 2013, which were transferred to the C.O.I., pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 18.08.2022, shall stand quashed. If there is no other enquiry or proceedings pending against the petitioner, the respondents are directed to release the pensional benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 23rd April, 2025 RKS