1 APHC010547342025 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: 28753/2025 Between: 1. S L N ANANDA KUMAR, S/O S. NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC RETD., TAHSILDAR, R/O D.NO. 3-161-29-2, S.B.I COLONY EXTENSION, GOLLAPALLI MITTA, MADANAPALLE, MADANAPALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR 4. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH AT VADDESWARAM, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, 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 topleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned Charge Memo vide Roc.Al/5229/2015 Dt.28.07.2015, issued by the then Respondent No.3 whereby continuing the departmental enquiry against the petitioner for more than 10 years from the date of incident and date of 2 issuance of charge memo as illegal, arbitrary, against the Law laid by the Honble High court and Apex court on the ground of delay and latches in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department Dated01.11.2008 and set aside the impugned Charge Memo vide Roc.Al/5229/2015, Dt.28.07.2015 on the sole ground of delay and latches in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and consequently direct the respondents to release all consequential retirement benefits which are pending 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 suspend the Impugned Charge Memo vide Roc.Al/5229/2015, Dt.28.07.2015, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28753 OF 2025 ORDER:- The present writ petition is filed declaring the impugned charge memo vide Roc.A1/5229/2015, dated 28.07.2015, issued by the then respondent No.3, whereby continuing the departmental enquiry against the petitioner for more than 10 years from the date of incident and date of issuance of charge memo as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to file the writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner, initially, was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Revenue Department on 05.11.1983, subsequently, he was promoted to the posts of Senior Assistant, Deputy Tahsildar and Tahsildar. Since the date of his appointment, he has rendered his services and attended his duties with utmost care and caution and to the satisfaction of his higher authorities. He was retired from the service while working in the post of Tahsildar, Gudipalle Mandal, Chittoor District on 31.07.2018 on attaining the age of superannuation. Though he has retired from the service on 31.07.2018, the respondents did not grant him the pensionary benefits till today on the ground that an enquiry was pending on him. 3. It is further submitted that the alleged enquiry was started in the year 2015 as the then respondent No.3 had issued a charge memo vide Roc.A1/5229/2015, dated 28.07.2015 while he was working as Tahsildar, 4 Molakalacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor district alleging unauthorized entries in 1B and anangals. 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 relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and taking note of the submissions made by the Assistant Government Pleader, this Court is of the opinion that the Government had issued the comprehensive guidelines for conclusion of departmental proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.91General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 and clause 5 (ix) would be relevant for disposal of this case which reads as under: 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 5 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 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Respondent No.1 shall appoint an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer as required under APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 forthwith and shall ensure that the enquiry shall be concluded within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The Petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. (iii) In the event, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner is not concluded within the time specified above, the petitioner shall be paid retirement benefits in entirety without further reference to the orders of this Court. (iv) The disciplinary authority, as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be answerable for the delay in not concluding the enquiry within the time specified. (v) No order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 17.10.2025 sj 7 156 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 28753 OF 2025 Date: 17.10.2025 sj