Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28800 (AP)

GUVVALA MALLIKARJUNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/21238/2025 · 2025-08-11

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010410512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21238/2025 Between: 1. GUVVALA MALLIKARJUNA, S/O SUBBAIAH (LATE), AGED 61 YEARS, OCC. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WORKING AT DISTRICT POLICE TRAINING CENTRE, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF AP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL RANGE , KUMOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERIENTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.21238 OF 2025 ORDER:- The present writ petition is filed questioning the impugned charge memo issued in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.15 of 2015 dated 20.07.2018 in continuing the departmental enquiry against the Petitioner for more than 13 years from the date of incident and more than 7 years from the date of issuance of charge memo, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to conclude the enquiry expeditiously. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable on 10.08.1984. Thereafter, in the year 2010, he was promoted as Head Constable and subsequently, in the year 2019, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police. While working as Head Constable at III Town Police Station, a crime was registered against the Petitioner by the ACB Kurnool Range vide F.I.R.No.10/Rct-KUR/2011 dated 28.11.2011 based on the false allegation that he had demanded Rs.3,000/- as illegal gratification from one Mr. G.Madhu for doing official favour. While so, the 1st Respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1218 dated 16.05.2013 whereby initiated departmental action under Rule 20 of A.P.Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and vide Memo No.1130/SC.A/A3/2011-3 dated 17.10.2013 an enquiry was entrusted to TDP (Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings). The case against the Petitioner was registered as Enquiry Case No.15 of 2015 and the charge was issued on 20.07.2018. Even after, there was no progress in the enquiry. Due to abolition of TDP, the 1st Respondent issued Memo No.1928684/SC.A/A2/2002-5 dated 09.02.2023 allocating the cases pending before Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to the Members, Commissionerate of Enquiries. Accordingly, the 2nd Respondent office issued proceedings dated 17.04.2023 by instructing the 4th Respondent to obtain explanation from the charged officers. The 1st Respondent has also issued G.O.Rt.No.423 dated 20.04.2023 appointing enquiry officer. The 2nd Respondent issued proceedings vide RC.No.313/02/2023 dated 04.05.2023 whereby instructing the 4th Respondent to obtain explanation from the charged officers. Thereafter the Petitioner received an endorsement dated 06.05.2023 and 18.05.2023 from the 4th Respondent asking his explanation for the allegations. On 29.07.2024 the Petitioner had submitted written arguments. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in filing the writ petition is that though the charge memorandum was issued on 20.07.2018, there has been no progress in the enquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner 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 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 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 has issued the comprehensive guidelines for the 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 the 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 and taking note of the advanced stage of the enquiry and fag end of the career of the Petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The enquiry against the Petitioner shall be concluded within a period of three (3) months from today. (ii) In the event the enquiry against the Petitioner is not concluded, the pendency of the enquiry will not be a bar for consideration of his case for promotion to a higher post and for release of retirement benefits in entirety. (iii) In the event enquiry is not concluded within time specified, the Disciplinary Authority and officers concerned shall be answerable for the delay. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 12.08.2025 Ivd THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.21238 of 2025 Date: 12.08.2025 Ivd