1 APHC010490212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 25060/2025 Between: M Venkata Krishnaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 25060/2025 The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the delay in conclusion of Disciplinary Proceedings issued vide G.O.Rt.No.485, HM & FW (VC.I) Department, dated 31.07.2024, consequentially depriving the rightful promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Chief Pharmacy Officer (Pharmacy Supervisor) from the post of Senior Pharmacy Officer ( Pharmacist Gr-I). 2. The Petitioner has been working as Senior Pharmacy Officer (Pharmacist Grade-I) since 30.03.2022. On 31.07.2024, a Charge Memorandum vide G.O.Rt.No.485, dated 31.07.2024 was issued to the Petitioner along with six others. The said Charge Memorandum shows the minor lapses on the part of the Petitioner. Though the Petitioner had submitted his explanation on 11.11.2024, no decision has been taken thereon by the Respondent Authorities till date. 3. The apprehension of the Petitioner is that in view of the pendency of the Charge Memorandum with reference to the minor lapses, the case of the Petitioner would not be considered for promotion to the Post of Chief Pharmacy Officer. 3 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 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 further 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. However, the Disciplinary Enquiry was not concluded. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that due to administrative reasons, the disciplinary enquiry pending against the Petitioner could not be completed. He further submits that final orders would be passed taking note of the explanation given by the Petitioner on 11.11.2024. 6. The Articles of Charges framed against the Petitioner are as follows: “ Charge No.1: That the Government Servant has failed to maintain cleanliness and to place the Drugs in the racks as they are found on the floor in pell-mell condition. 4 Charge No.2: That the Government Servant has failed to maintain temperature recording sheets and is also responsible for the difference of stock of drugs in the main store and stocks of surgical store when compared with the stock registers and physical stock”. 7. A reading of the above charges shows minor lapses on the part of the Petitioner, which are not detrimental to the continuance of the Petitioner in the said post. Further, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Disciplinary Enquiry should have been completed on submission of explanation by the Petitioner and there is no reason to keep the enquiry pending, which consequently affects the rightful promotional avenues of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) the Respondents are directed to conclude the Disciplinary Enquiry pending against the Petitioner, taking note of the Explanation submitted by the Petitioner on 11.11.2024, within a period of three months. ii) In the interregnum, the case of the Petitioner shall be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Pharmacy Officer ( Pharmacy Supervisor) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. 5 iii) While considering the case of the Petitioner, the Respondents shall take into consideration that the charges framed against the Petitioner are trivial in nature and the incident pertains to the year 2020. iv) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 17.09.2025 eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO.25060/2025 Dated 17.09.2025 eha