APHC010346162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17599/2025 Between: 1. A.MANGARAJU,, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA, AGED 62 YEARS, CIVIL DRAUGHTS MAN GRADE-I (RETIRED), O/O. THE DS AND LRO, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, R/O. PLOT.NO.116, PSR COLONY, VIZIANAGARAM CITY VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR, SURVEY SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, A.P. I.I.C. BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, M.Z-I KAKINADA AT VIJAYAWADA, A.P. I.I.C. BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, SRIKAKULAM, COLLECTRATE COMPLEX. SRIKAKULAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 RC.No.A4/600/2022-1, dated Nil.11.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, discrimination, unjust, contrary to instructions /guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022 and orders of this Hon'ble 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 terms of the G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD Department dated 12.09.2022 IA 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 complete the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners vide Charge Memo RC.No.A4/600/2022-1, dated Nil.11.2022 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, GAD Department, dated 12.09.2022 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.17599 of 2025 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the Respondent No.3 in concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Ref.No.A4/600/2022-1, dated Nil 11.2022 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD Department dated 12.09.2022 and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to conclude the enquiry expeditiously. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows; The Petitioner is a retired Civil Draughts Man Grade-I. It is the case of Petitioner that Respondent No.3 issued a Charge Memo to the Petitioner vide RC.No.A4/600/2022-1, dated Nil.11.2022 alleging that while the Petitioner was working as Civil Draughtsman Grade-I, SDM In-charge, O/o AD S & LR, Srikakulam has attended the office irregularly without following the prescribed timings as mentioned in DOM and left the office without informing to higher officials and caused much inconvenience to the officials and smooth administration. 4 3. It is further contended that in response to the Charge Memo, the Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation denying the Charge and requested to drop further action against him. Without satisfaction of the explanation, Respondent No.3 appointed the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer vide Proceedings dated 13.03.2023. Subsequently, the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were changed vide Proceedings dated 19.06.2023. 4. Thereafter notices were issued to the Petitioner to attend the enquiry, the Petitioner attended to the enquiry, enquiry was concluded and enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority, but the disciplinary proceedings are not yet concluded and the same is pending before the Respondent authorities. 5. During the pendency of disciplinary proceedings the Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2025. Due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the Respondent authorities are not paying regular pension to the Petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 6. The grievance of the Petitioner in filing the Writ Petition is that though the Charge Memorandum was issued in the month of March, 2023, there has been no progress in the disciplinary proceedings. 5 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri B. Ramashankara Rao, by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, submits that the Government had framed comprehensive guidelines fixing definite time frame for expediting the process of disciplinary cases in supersession of the previous guidelines. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in simple cases, the enquiry should be completed within three months and in complicated cases, the enquiry should be completed within five to six months and seeks for expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that since the Petitioner had retired from service, the further action has been initiated by the Respondent authority and due to certain administrative issues, there is delay, however, submitted that the enquiry would be completed as expeditiously as possible as mandated under the G.O.Ms.No.91 relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 9. Having heard the learned counsel and taking note of the submissions made by the Assistant Government Pleader, this Court is of the opinion that the Government had issued the comprehensive guidelines for conclusion of departmental proceedings vide 6 G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 and clause 5 (ix) would be relevant for disposal of this case which reads as under: ‘ix. Government direct that in all simple cases the inquiry initiated against Government Servant shall be completed within three months either by Departmental Officers or Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the inquiry should be completed within five to six months. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the inquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minister.’ 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Respondent authority shall ensure that the disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The Petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. (iii) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 21.07.2025 IS 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.17599 of 2025 Date: 21.07.2025 IS