APHC010242722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12672/2025 Between: Sk Salam The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K ASAD AHAMED Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “ 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 ROC No 4144/2020/A1 dated 11 12 2023 a 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 Honble Court apart from violation of Arti Constitution of India IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 12672/2025 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: petition is filed with the following prayer: 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 ROC No 4144/2020/A1 dated 11 12 2023 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 Honble Court apart from violation of Article 14 16 and 21 of India and consequently direct the respondents to [3506] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(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 s 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 of he 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 to pass….” 2. Heard Mr. A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel representing Sri. Heard Mr. A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel representing Sri. Kasad Ahamed, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents. 3. Petitioner was issued a Charge Memo dated 11.12.2023, setting out three articles of charges, which essentially related to dereliction of office duties in collecting taxes for the Government. Petitioner submitted an explanation on 19.12.2023, refuting the aforesaid charges. Respondent thereafter appointed an Inquiry Officer by proceedings dated 25.05.2024; however, the inquiry is not concluded so far. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though a Charge Me mo was issued on 11.12.2023, the inquiry has not been concluded so far. He further submits that, in terms of 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, fixing timelines to complete the inquiry within six (06) months in complicated and three months in simple cases respectively, the respondent authorities have not concluded the inquiry so far. He also would submit the retirement benefits were not released to the petitioner due to the pendency of the aforementioned charge memo. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that due to general election, the inquiry was not been concluded so far. He also would submit that respondent authorities will conclude the inquiry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. 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 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….” (emphasis is mine) 7. 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 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 appellants should not be made to suffer.” 8. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha3, the Hon’ble Apex Court 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. 9. In the case at hand, the charge memo issued against the petitioner is dated 11.12.2023 and the explanation submitted by the petitioner is dated 19.12.2023. However, the inquiry has not been concluded so far. For the fault on the part of the disciplinary authority, in not concluding the inquiry, the petitioner shall not be made to suffer. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the learned concerned respondent authority to conclude the inquiry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 1(1998)4SCC 154 2(2005)6SCC636 11. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 08.05.2025. RSI