APHC010323712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) V •5;<- w. f?: , THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 5*' ‘•.o' '•X. ■ :i WRIT PETITION NO: 16335 OF 2025 Between: M. Jayaram, S/o Late Sree Rama Murthy, Aged 62 years, Occ Retd.Accounts Officer, O/o. VC and MD,INCAP, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. R/o Fiat No. 402, Arctic Royal Apartment, Pradeep Nagar, Vizianagaram. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Finance Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Amaravathi @ Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi at Ibrahimpatnam, Guntur Dist. 3. The Deputy Director District Treasury, Visakhapatnam 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 an appropriate Order or direction, or Writ more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not processing the pension claims of the petitioner on the ground of initiating and continuing disciplinary action against the petitioner vide G.O. Rt. No. 1630, Finance (Admn.l) Dept, dated 10.08.2018, on flimsy and untenable charges and by passing and overlooking promotion of the petitioner to the post of Dy. Director without justification as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and setaside the Article of Charge memo, issued vide G.O.Rt.No. 1630 Finance r (Admn.l) Dept., dt 10.8.2018 on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in not concluding the departmental/disciplinary proceedings and consequently direct the respondents regularise the gap period from 27.03.2022 to 23.07.2023 treating as on duty and release full pension and pensionary benefits by considering his due promotion to the post of Dy. Director from the date of his eligibility or promotion of his immediate junior, without reference to the Charge Memo issued to him vide G.O. Rt. No. 1630, Finance (Admn.l) Dept, dated 10.08.2018 forthwith with all consequential benefits and pass. 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to Charge Memo G.O. Rt. No. 1630, Finance (Admn.l) Dept, dated 10.08.2018 and regularize the gap period from 27.03.2022 to 23.07.2023 as on duty and process the pension papers and release the pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner from the date of his retirement on superannuation on 31.05.2025 pending disposal of main writ petition and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following Order: APHC010323712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SEE [3506] ErSs FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 16335/2075 Between: 1.M JAYARAM, S/0 LATE SREE RAMA MURTHY AGED 62 YEARS, OCC RETD.ACCOUNTS OFFICER, MD,INCAP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. NO. 402, ARCTIC ROYAL APARTMENT, PRADEEP NAGAR VIZIANAGARAM. 0/0. VC AND R/0 FLAT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, FINANCE DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL REP. BY ITS SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI @ VELAGAPUDI, ANDHRA PRADESH. SECRETARY, A.P. 2.THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI AT IBRAHIMPATNAm’ GUNTUR DIST. 3.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. DISTRICT TREASURY, ...RESPONDENT(S): - praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay to issue an appropriate Order or direction, or Writ more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the processing the pension claims of the petitioner on the ground of Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India respondents in not 2 HCGR,J W.P.No.16335 of2025 initiating and continuing disciplinary action against the petitioner vide G.O. Rt. No. 1630, Finance (Admn.l) Dept, dated 10.08.2018, on flimsy and untenable charges and by passing and overlooking promotion of the petitioner to the post of Dy. Director without justification as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and setaside the Article of Charge memo, issued vide G.O.Rt.No. 1630 Finance (Admn.l) Dept., dt 10.8.2018 on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in not concluding the departmental/disciplinary proceedings and consequently direct the respondents regularise the gap period from 27.03.2022 to 23.07.2023 treating as on duty and release full pension and pensionary benefits by considering his due promotion to the post of Dy. Director from the date of his eligibility or promotion of his immediate junior, without reference to the Charge Memo issued to him vide G.O. Rt. No. 1630, Finance (Admn.l) Dept, dated 10.08.2018 forthwith with all consequential benefits and pass 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to Charge Memo G.O. Rt. No. 1630, Finance (Admn.l) Dept, dated 10.08.2018 and regularize 27.03.2022 to 23.07.2023 as on duty and process the pension papers and release the pension and other retirement benefits to the the gap periodfrom petitioner from the date of his retirement on superannuation on 31.05.2025 pending disposal of main writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.D LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I • 3 HCGRJ W.P.No.16335 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: Petitioner assails the action of respondents in not processing the pension and retirement benefits payable to petitioner on account of continuation of disciplinary proceedings, initiated pursuant to charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.1630, Finance (ADMN.I) Department, dated 10.08.2018, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Petitioner retired as Accounts Officer on attaining age of 2. superannuation on 31.05.2025. While, he rendered services as Assistant Treasury Officer at Sub Treasury Office, Visakhapatnam he was issued charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.1630, Finance (ADMN.I) Department, dated 10.08.2018, on account of certain irregularities in processing and payment of pensions. Petitioner submitted statement of defence on 19.10.2018, refuting the charges levelled against him. Later, Inquiry Officer came to be appointed on 08.03.2019, and the inquiry is still going on, and no report has yet been submitted. Meanwhile, petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2025. Though petitioner is entitled for pension and retirement benefits, on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, he has not been settled the same. 3. Fleard Sri D.Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. HCGRJ W.P.No.l6335of2025 contends that the disciplinary proceedings, in normal course, ought to have been completed within three months in case of simple cases and six months in case of complicated cases, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner 01.11.2018 and as reiterated vide G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. As there is an inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings, petitioner cannot be denied the retirement benefits on the said pretext. Even otherwise, such an inordinate delay cannot justify the indefinite continuation of the disciplinary proceedings and the same need to be concluded. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that inquiry would be completed within some timeframe, G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 in terms of 6. 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. 5 HCGRJ W.P.N0.1633S of 2025 In State of A.P. v. N.Radhakishan^, the Hon’ble Apex Court 7. 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....” In R17 Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board^, the Hon’ble 8. 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.” In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha^, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that before the charge 9. sheet is quashed, the Court must consider the gravity of the charge and all other relevant factors before coming to the said conclusion. 1 (1998) 4 see 154 2 (2005) 6 see 636 3 (2012) 11 see 565 6 HCGR,J W.P.No.l6335of2025 10. In view of the above expressions, employees cannot work under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary proceedings, time schedules If no are fixed for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.679 will be frustrated. 11. In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place around 2011-2012 and disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated in the year 2018. Though Inquiry Officer was appointed, no report has been submitted so far. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the view of the above discussion, the respondents conclude the inquiry, within a period of six (06) months from today, failing which the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide > G.O.Rt.No.1630, Finance (ADMN.I) Department, dated shall stand quashed and the petitioner shall retirement and pensionary benefits. case and in are directed to 10.08.2018, be released all 13. With the above directions, the Writ Petition There shall be no order as to costs. is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. i Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, A.P. Secretariat, Finance Department, 1. The Principal Secretary, Amaravathi @ Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh. R. of Treasuries and Accounts, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi } A 2. The Director at Ibrahimpatnam, Guntur Dist. 3. The Deputy Director District Treasury, Visakhapatnam District. 4. One CC to Sri. D Linga Rao, Advocate [OPUC] GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CCs to 6. Two CD Copies VNA * 4: \ HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 16335 OF 2025 * UJUt:2(l25 m c» ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS