1 APHC010548422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28703/2025 Between: 1. D BALASUBRAMANYAM, S/O MUNUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, FOREST SECTION OFFICER, KRISHNAPATNAM SECTION, NELLORE RANGE, R/O PLOT NO. 15, DOOR NO. 170, CHANAKYAPURI PODALAKUR ROAD, NELLORE-4. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. , BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENVIRONMENT, FOREST, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMERIT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ARNARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE(VIG-LL) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ARNARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, (HEAD OF FOREST FORCE) GOVERNMENT OF A. P., ARANYAEIHAVAN, AGATHAVARAPADU, GUNTUR. ...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 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings pursuant 2 to the charge memo issued by the 2nd Respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 710 Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department dated 27-08-2020 for an alleged incident pertaining to the year 2013, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by the delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated for completion of enquiries in G.O. Ms. No. 679 dated 01-11-2008, G.O. Ms. No.91 dated 12- 09-2022 and provisions of Rule 20 of ARCS (CC andA) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly set-aside the same in the interest of justice and to 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 suspend the operation of the Impugned Charge Memo issued by the 2nd Respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 710 Revenue (Vigilance-ll) Department dated 27-08-2020and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V RAVICHANDRAN 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: 28703 OF 2025 ORDER:- 1. The present Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the Charge-Memo issued by Respondent No.2 vide G.O.Rt.No.710, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 27.08.2020 for the alleged incident pertaining to the year 2013, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to file the writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner while working as Forest Section Officer at Integrated Check Post, BV Palem, Tada Mandal of Nellore District, a surprise check was conducted on credible information that staff at the Integrated Check Post were indulging in corrupt practices and collecting 8mamools9 from the crew of vehicles plying through the check post on 29.12.2013. The surprise check was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nellore Range, in the presence of mediators. The surprise check was conducted on Transport Wing, Prohibition and Excise Wing, Commercial Taxes Incoming and Outgoing Wings at the check post. On checking, it came to the light that an unaccounted amount of Rs.4520/- was collected. On the basis of this surprise check, the impugned Charge–Memorandum was issued to the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.710, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 27.08.2020. 4 3. Denying the allegations levelled against the Petitioner, the Petitioner has submitted a detailed Written Statement of defence on 25.08.2021. Since the alleged incident pertains to the year 2013, and proceedings are yet to be concluded till date, the present Writ Petition is filed. 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 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-II would submit that the enquiry would be completed as expeditiously as possible as mandated under the G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022 relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 6. Heard the respective counsel. 7. The Government had issued the comprehensive guidelines for conclusion of departmental proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022 and Clause 5 (ix) would be relevant for disposal of this case, which reads as under: 5 8ix. 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.9 8. Prior to G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022, the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (ser.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 fixing the time frame for conclusion of enquiries. However, hardly any case is concluded on time. 9. Coming to the present case, the allegation is dependent on the statements of lorry cleaners cited as witnesses in Annexure-IV and the mediators at the time of check. It is a matter of common knowledge that memory fades with passage of time and non-seriousness on the part of disciplinary authorities in concluding enquiry does not augur well for the department. 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Respondent/ Disciplinary authority shall ensure that the enquiry against the petitioner be concluded within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The Petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. 6 (iii) In the event, the enquiry is not concluded within the time frame fixed above, the impugned Charge-Memo would not be a bar for promotion of petitioner. (iv) The Disciplinary Authority, as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be answerable for the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry beyond the time frame specified above. (v) No order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 17.10.2025 sj 7 161 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28703 OF 2025 Date: 17.10.2025 sj