APHC010404162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 20802 OF Between: Banothun Danju The State of Andhra Pradesh Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K V RAGHU VEER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 20802 OF 2025 AND of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 20802 OF 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the inaction of the Respondents in considering the Petitioner’s Application No.190610, dated 24.05.2025 for transfer from Chanamilli Village, Eluru to Chataparru Village, Eluru on the ground of disciplinary proceedings are pending against the Petitioner. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows: The Petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher and posted at Mandal Praja Parishath School, Appalarajugudem Village, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District by the Respondent No.4 on 02.11.2000 and at present he is working at ZPHS, Chinamilli, Nidamarru Mandal, Eluru District as School Assistant for Social Studies. 3. While he was working at Kaikaram, the Respondent No.4 issued a Show-Cause Notice dated 17.02.2018 basing on the complaint made by political parties. Subsequently no opportunity had given to the Petitioner to submit explanation and he kept under suspension vide Proceedings dated 30.10.2018. 4. Subsequently, Articles of Charges were framed and the Petitioner had submitted his explanation on 15.07.2019 denying the allegations, vide Proceedings dated 29.06.2019. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner was reinstated into service and assumed charge at Z.P.High School, Y.V.Lanka. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner in filing the writ petition is that though the Articles of Charge was issued in the year 2019, there has been no progress in the enquiry till date. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. K.V.Raghuveer, by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022, submits that the Government has 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. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents would submit that the further action has been initiated by Respondent No.1 for appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer 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. 8. 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.’ 9. 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 three (03) months from today. (ii) The Petitioner shall co-operate for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. (iii) In the event, the enquiry is in progress beyond the time frame fixed by this Court, the case of the Petitioner for transfer on spouse grounds shall be considered by the Respondents without reference to the Charge Memo. (iv) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 11.08.2025 KK