APHC010352872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17970 OF Between: S Ramanjaneyulu The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17970 OF 2025 AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: T V V KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17970 OF 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Charge Memo vide Rc.No.390/C2/2024, dated 03.09.2024 issued by Respondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner was working as Senior Assistant. While he was working at Primary Health Centre, Sambepalli, Annamayya District, he met with an accident on 24.08.2023 and took treatment as inpatient for five days in C.M.C Hospital, Vellore and Ranipet, Tamilnadu. While the Petitioner reported to duty on 29.02.2024 by enclosing a fitness certificate, the Respondent No.3 refused to join him on the ground that the Petitioner abused the higher authorities and called for explanation. The Petitioner had submitted his explanation on 13.03.2024 to the Respondent No.3 denying the allegations against him and requesting to drop further action for the memo dated 05.03.2024. Further, the Petitioner made representations for sanction of the remaining period of leave on medical grounds and also for issue of reposting orders at an early date, since the Petitioner is waiting at the office of Respondent No.3 since 29.02.2024. Subsequently, the Respondent No.3 issued reposting orders to the same place i.e PHC, Sambepalli on 10.04.2024 without TTA and joining time, pending disciplinary action as per Rules. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in filing the writ petition is that though the charge memorandum was issued in the year 2024, there has been no progress in the enquiry and no Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer has been appointed by Respondent No.1 till date. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. T.V.V.Koteswara 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 a 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. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that no further action has been initiated by the Respondent Authorities for appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and due to certain administrative issues, there is a 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. 6. 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 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.’ 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Respondent No.1 shall appoint an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer as required under APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 forthwith and shall ensure that the enquiry shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The Petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. (iii) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 18.07.2025 KK