A s 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE / PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31552 OF 2024 Between: B Srinivasa Rao, S/o B. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 61 years, Presently Wroking as Distilary Officer (Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent), PMK Distillery, Kotapadu, Rangampeta Mandal, Rajamundary, East Godavari dist R/o Bridge County, Opposite Giet English College, A-109, Chakradwarabandam Villlage, East Godavari district. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of Proh and Excise Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, R/o. 88-2B, Sai Vihar Apartments, Poultry Farm Road, Prasadampadu (v), Vijayawada, N.T.R District. ...Respondents - 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 declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending disciplinary Proceedings vide TEC No. 303 of 2013, dated 03- 08-2018 issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP), now referred to Commissioner of Inquiries vide G.ORt. Nos. 462 Revenue (Vigilance-IV) Department. Dated 09-05- 2023 by the 1st respondent, for the incident pertains to the year 2010-2012, as illegal arbitrary and in violation of existing specific instructions of the Government, for early conclusion, and as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in P.V.MAHADEVAN Vs. M.D. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, and accordingly set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 3 months, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 679 GA (SER.C) Department, dated 1-11-2008, and G.O.Ms.No. 91 GAD Dated 12-09-2022, failing which the proceedings stands quashed automatically, in terms of the similar orders passed in Liquor Syndicate Cases, in W.P.No. 23107 of 2024 dated 14.10.2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 3 months, pending against the petitioner vide TEC No. 303 of 2013, dated; 03-08-2018 which related to Liquor Syndicate, of 2010-12 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: fSV APHC010603072024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) I—I [3331] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31552/2024 Between: AGED 61 DISTILARY OFFICER 1.B SRINIVASA RAO, S/0 B. VENKATESWARA RAO YEARS, PRESENTLY WROKING AS (ASSISTANT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT), PMK MAN DAL, RANGAMPETA KOTAPADU, RAJAMUNDARY, EAST GODAVARI DIST R/0 BRIDGE COUNTY, A-109, DISTILLERY, COLLEGE, ENGLISH GIET OPPOSITE CHAKRADWARABANDAM VILLLAGE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND PRINCIPAL SCERETARY, SECRETARIAT, 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, A.P. VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF PROH AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, R/0. 88-2B, SAI VIHAR APARTMENTS, POULTRY FARM KOACL, PRASADAMPADU (V), VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending disciplinary Proceedings vide TEC No. 303 of 2013, dated 03- 08-2018 issued by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings(TDP), now SRS,^*^ W.P.No.31552 of 2024 referred to Commissioner of Inquiries vide G.ORt. Nos. 462 Revenue (Vigilance-IV) Department, Dated 09-05- 2023 by the 1st respondent, for the incident pertains to the year 2010-2012, as illegal arbitrary and in existing specific instructions of the Government, for early conclusion, and well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court P.V.MAHADEVAN Vs. M.D. TAMIL NADU HOUSING violation of as reported in BOARD, and accordingly set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 3 months, G.O.Ms.No.679 GA (SER.C) Department, dated 1-11-2008 G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD Dated 12-09-2022, failing which the proceedings stands quashed automatically, in terms of the similar orders passed in Liquor Syndicate Cases, in W.P.No.23107 of 2024 dated 14.10.2024 and to pass in terms of and lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 3 months, pending against the petitioner vide TEC No. 303 of 2013, dated: 03- 08-2018 which related to Liquor Syndicate, of 2010-12 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The petitioner. Distillery Officer (Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent), PMK Distillery, Kotapadu, filed the above writ petition to declare the inaction on the part of respondent authorities in concluding the disciplinary proceedings issued against him vide Tribunal Enquiry Case SRS,J W.P.No.31552 of 2024 No.303 of 2013, dated 03.08.2018 (Ex.PI), which is pending before the learned Commissionerate of Inquiries, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Smt. B. Sreeteja, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appeared for respondents 1 & 2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a case in TEC.No.303 of 2013 was registered against the petitioner based on a surprise check conducted by the ACB official at the Office of Excise Superintendents at Amalapuram, Kakinada and Rajahmundry on 05.03.2012. Learned counsel would submit that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 fixing the timeline to complete the inquiry. She would also submit that initially the cases were pending before the Tribunal for inquiry and after the abolition of the Tribunal, all the above three cases were entrusted to the Commissionerate of Inquiries. However, the inquiry has not concluded so far and thus prayed to quash the charge memos. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would submit that the respondent authorities will conclude the inquiry in the aforementioned Tribunal Enquiry Cases, as expeditiously as possible. 4. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan\ the Hon’ble Apex Court held as 5. under: “The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay Is abnormal and there Is no explanation for the delay. The delinguent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has '\ \ (1998) 4 see 154 mm srs,j4^ W.P No.31552 of 2024 vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinguent employee is writ large on the face of it.... ” 6. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board^, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “11 The protracted disciplinary enguiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enguiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for Initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. ” In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that before the charge sheet is quashed, this Court must consider the gravity of the charge and all other relevant factors before coming to the said conclusion. 7. 8. Given the above expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, employees cannot work under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary proceedings. Despite fixing time schedules as per the aforementioned G.O. the inquiry is delayed and the very purpose of G.O., has in fact, been frustrated. In the case at hand, the alleged incident took place in 2012 and the case was registered in the year 2013. However, the inquiry has not been concluded so far. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was abolished in 9. 2 (209i5) 6 see 636 3 (2012) 11 see 565 SRS.J W.P.No.31552 of 2024 2022. Thereafter, the disciplinary case was transferred to the the year Commissionerate of Inquiries. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and given the discussion supra, the learned Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) is directed to conclude the inquiries, within six (06) months from today, failing which, the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.303 of 2013, which was transferred to the C.O.I, shall stand quashed automatically without reference any further orders. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services shall intimate/inform the learned Commissionaire of Inquiries about the order passed by this Court. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- V SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 10. 11. //TRUE COPY// /f' ' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of Proh and Excise Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, R/o. 88-2B, Sai Vihar Apartments, Poultry Farm Road, Prasadampadu (v), Vijayawada, N.T.R District. 3. One CC to Sri. Bugulu Sreeteja Advocate [OPUC 4. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies GSC > HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.31552of2024 s 0 3 FEB 2025 Co Current Section . ^ ^S!;:^Spatcva^2<<' DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS