APHC010032872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1853/2025 Between: 1. SK JAMEEULLA, S/O SK. FAKRODDIN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC DISTRICT GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.(KURNOOL DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF A.P, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide Charge Memo vide Memo No. 741/CPR and RE/M/2005 dated 08.04.2005 and prolonging the disciplinary proceedings from the year 2005 event though the petitioner acquittal in criminal case vide C.C. No. 6 of 2004 on 26.10.2012 on the file of The Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Nellore as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No. 2 91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and contrary to the orders of this Honble Court apart from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No. 91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide Charge Memo vide Memo No. 741/CPR&RE/M/2005 dated 08.04.2005 issued by the 2nd respondent in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri T.S.N.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents. 2. A charge memo vide memo No.741/CPR&RE/M/2005, dated 08.04.2005 (Ex.P1) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a written defence on 15.08.2008 (Ex.P2). A criminal case was registered against the petitioner vide C.C.No.6 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Nellore. The said case was ended in acquittal on 26.10.2012. Against the said acquittal State filed an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No.1058 of 2014 and the same is pending for consideration. 3 3. The inquiry in pursuance of the charge memo was entrusted to the Commissioner of Inquires vide G.O.Rt.No.1390 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Vig.IV) Department, dated 30.09.2009. Thereafter, notices dated 07.10.2015 and 20.02.2016 were served on the petitioner. However, the inquiry has not been completed so far. 4. The above writ petition was listed on 27.01.2025 and the same was adjourned at the request of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for getting instructions. This Court, while adjourning the matter directed the learned 1st respondent to look into the delay aspect and apprise the Court regarding developments. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services submitted a memo of Deputy Secretary to Government vide memo No.374909-2245/VIG- IV/A1/2004, dated 27.01.2025. The operative portion is usefully extracted hereunder: “The Government Pleader, for Services-IV, High Court of AP, is informed that, the departmental action has been initiated by the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj against Sri Jameeulla, MPDO, Retired and four others for violation of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Article of Charges, issued against the AOs and after examining the WSDs of Cos, the case has been entrusted to the COI for inquiry vide G.O.Rt.No.1390 of PR & RD (Vig.IV) Department, dated 30.09.2009. The case was re-assigned to Sri K.Venkata Rami Reddy, Member, COI, GAD vide G.O.Rt.No.679 PR & RD (Vig.IV) Department dated 26.11.2020 (copy enclosed). The inquiry report in the matter is awaited. Soon after its receipt, further action will be taken, in accordance with rules.” 6. It is very unfortunate that even is not appraising the developments in the inquiry. A charge memo, as referred supra is dated 08.04.2005. Even after the completion of 19 years, the petitioner is still branded as delinquent. The petitioner is retiring from service on 30.04.2025. 4 7. In the instructions it was mentioned that the petitioner has retired from service. This incident made things more disable about the state of affairs in furnishing the instructions to the Court. 8. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, and thereafter G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 fixing timelines to complete inquiry three and six months in case of simple and complicated matters. 9. In the case at hand, as seen from the material available on record, the inquiry was entrusted to the Commissioner of Inquiries vide G.O.Rt.No.1390 of PR & RD (Vig.IV) Department, dated 30.09.2009. Thereafter, the case was re-assigned to Sri K.Venkata Rami Reddy, Member, COI, GAD vide G.O.Rt.No.679 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Vig.IV) Department, dated 26.11.2020. 10. Despite the timelines fixed in G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022, for the reasons best known that the inquiry has not been completed so far. The lapses on the part of the respondent authorities in concluding the inquiry, the petitioner shall not be penalized or victimized. 11. The Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.45 of 2021, upheld the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1865 of 2020, dated 30.01.2020, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the respondent authorities to conclude the inquiry in four months from the date of receipt of the copy, failing which the inquiry proceedings shall stand quashed. The learned Single Judge relied upon the judgments in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N.Radhakishan1 and P.V.Mahadevan vs.MD.T.N.Housing Board2. 1 (1998) 4 SCC 154 2 (2005) 6 SCC 636 5 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondents to conclude the inquiry in two (02) months from today, failing in which the charge memo vide No.741/CPR&RE/M/2005, dated 08.04.2005 (Ex.P1), shall stand quashed without reference to any further order. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Learned Assistant Government Pleader shall inform the learned Commissioner of Inquiries about the timelines fixed by this Court. 14. The Registry shall communicate a copy of this order to the learned Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 29.01.2025 SNI 6 217 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.1853 of 2025 Dated: 29.01.2025 SNI