APHC010548632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28308/2025 Between: 1. GADDE SRINIVAS, S/O. LATE CHINA SOMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, STATE TAXES, BHAVANIPURAM CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA - I DIVISION NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER STATE TAXES, D.NO. 12- 468-4, KUNCHANAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522501. 3. V KEDARESWARA RAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, BHIMAVARAM CIRCLE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDRHA PRADESH. ...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 topleased to issue an order, direction or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, 2 declaring the action of 2nd respondent in not concluding disciplinary proceedings in charge memo vide CCT's Ref.No.V1/80/2022 dated 07.06.2022, even after inordinate delay of more than 9 years, on a concocted allegation of lack of supervision over subordinate officers while working as CTO at Nandigama Circle, Vijayawada, Krishna District, basing on a surprise check of the ACB officials, Vijaywada, dated 26.4.2016 for being illegal, arbitrary against the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, and unconstitutional and consequently quash the disciplinary proceedings in Charge Memo issued by the 2nd respondent vide CCT's Ref.No.V1/80/2022 dated 07.06.2022 and pass 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 pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (ST), pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.28308 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings issued on 07.06.2022 vide Ref.No.VI/80/2022 by the 2nd respondent. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows: The petitioner, while working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in the Commercial Taxes Department in the year 1995, was promoted as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in the year 2005, and in the year 2015, the petitioner was promoted as Commercial Tax Officer and posted to Nadigama Circle, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada Division. While so, on 26.04.2016, a surprise check was conducted by the ACB officials and certain irregularities were noticed. An excess amount of Rs.19,600/- was found in the possession of fourteen staff members and also Rs.80,000/- was found. On the face of the recovery, a charge memo in Ref.No.VI/80/2022 dated 07.06.2022 was issued against the petitioner and articles of charges were framed against the petitioner, though he was not present in the office at the relevant point of time. Though the incident was pertaining to the year 2016, the charge memorandum was issued only in the year 2022 and the 4 delay in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings is hindering the chances of promotion of the petitioner and his career. The articles of charges framed are as follows: <That Sri G.Srinivas, CTO Nandigama Circle was holding Supervisory post failed to take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of the Government Servants who are under his control and authority and due to which some of the employees though they were present in the office they did not put their signature in the attendance register and some of the employees left the office without any permission, some of the employees where in possession of excess cash than mentioned in the personal cash declaration register, the Senior Assistant Sri P. Nageswara Rao was found in possession of Rs.80,000/- which is the bribe amount received by him on the instructions of the CTO from Sri Sanka Maruthi Srinivas, Proprietor of Sri Ambika Home Appliances just before the arrival of ACB officials, Sai Yesupadam, Senior Assistant collected an amount of Rs.25,000/- as yearly mamools from Sri P. Aravind Gupta, Proprietor of Balaji Industries on the date of Surprise Check and Sri V. Rambabu, Senior Assistant was found in possession of hand written slip indicating the percentage of mamools that are being distributed among the office staff including the CTO and thereby violated Rule 3 (5) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Thus, the Government Servant Sri G.Srinivas, CTO, Nandigama Circle, Vijayawada, Krishna District by his above mentioned acts has exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to duty and conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant and contravened Rule 3 (1) & (2) of A.P.C.S (Conduct) Rules 1964.= 3. Sri Srinivas Rao Bodduluri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is a delay of nearly nine years from the date of the incident, and considering the fact that the petitioner was not present at the time of the surprise check by the ACB officials, the charge against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 4. Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the charge against the petitioner was framed after due consideration of the allegations and that the delay in the conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry is not a ground for quashing the proceedings, as the charge memo was issued in the year 2022. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the respondent officials would take appropriate steps to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. 5 5. Having heard the respective submissions, 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.’ 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i. The respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii. In the event the disciplinary enquiry is not concluded within the time frame fixed as above, the concerned authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, without reference to the pendency of the charge memorandum. iii. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J 15.10.2025 MH 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 81 WRIT PETITION No.28308 of 2025 Dt.15-10-2025 MH