IN THE HIQH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 11437 OF 2025 Between: R. Hanumanth Rao, S/o. Appaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Assistant Commissioner, Proh. and Excise Enforcement, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, 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 may be pleased 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.652 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 Honourable 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. 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. 652 of 2013 the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 on 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 APHC010215712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 11437/2025 Between: R Hanumanth Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TS N SUDHAKAR Counsel for thle Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 2 CGRJ W.P.No.ll437of2025 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.652 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 Honourable 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-1 for respondents. Petitioner while working as Excise Inspector, during the period 3. 01.09.2011 to 16.05.2012, an inspection and raid were conducted on various wine shops, which were within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. Based on the same, a charge memo, alleging various illegalities and misconduct, was issued to the petitioner. In pursuance of the same. Tribunal Enquiry Case No.652 of 2013 came to be instituted, for which petitioner was called upon to submit explanation. Petitioner submitted explanation. While so, the Tribunal CGRJ W.P.No.n437 of 2025 came to be abolished and all the pending matters have been transferred to Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) \A/here proceedings are stated to be pending. Petitioner is presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise and in view of pendency of aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, he is not being considered for promotion. As the said case is pending, and there is no progress, it is causing grave prejudice, agony, pain and suffering to the petitioner. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, fixing timelines 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. 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 Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, abolished by Ordinance No.6 of 2022, dated 16.8.2022. 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 1960 was The same CGR.J W.P. No.11437 of 2025 Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to the Comnnissionerate of 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 and G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. In the case on hand, the petitioner is facing the charges of corrupt abuse of official position and receiving of amount, since 5. motive 2012. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan\ the Hon’ble Apex Court 6. 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....” (1998) 4 see 154 5 CGR,J i W.P.No.11437 of 2025 In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board^, the Hon ble Apex Court observed as follows: 7. “li 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 to draw the curtain and to put an end to the necessary 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.” more more In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra 8. 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. 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 around 2012 and the case was registered as Tribunal Enquiry Case No.652 of 2013 and no charges were framed so far. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was abolished in the year 2022. There was 10. 2 (2005) 6 see 636 3 (2012) 11 see 565 6 CGR.J W.P.No.11437 of 2025 no progress in the inquiries 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 inquiries, within a period of six months from today, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (SER.C) department, dated 12.09.2022. Failing which, the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.652 of 2013 which was transferred to the COI, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.OS, dated 18.8.2022, shall stands quashed, if no other inquiry is pending. 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/- M SRINIVAS registrar ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SEPT] OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Excise) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, 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 HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 ^ANDH«5^ - - X 05JUM 292O .s It'll cojj7 ^ Current Section ^ ORDER WP.No.11437 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS