IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT iissr THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 11090 OF 2025 Between: R. Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Appaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ: Assistant Commissioner, Proh. & Excise Enforcement, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, State of A.P., Mangalagiri, Guntur 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, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide Charge Memo T.E.C.No.454 of 2013 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to G.C.Ms.No.679, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.D.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court apart from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.91 Generai Administration department dated 12.09.2022. (SER.C) lA NO: 1 OF 20?*; Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition pleased to direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary initiated against the petitioner vide Charge Memo T.E.C.No.454 the High Court may be proceedings of 2013 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. S. N. SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES The Court made the following: ORDER I APHC010215862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 11090/2025 Between: R Hanumantha Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 2 CGR,J W.P.No.U090of 2025 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “...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 T.E.C.No.454 of 2013 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad 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.91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and contrary to the orders of this Hon’ble Court apart from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and pass such other order or orders....” 2. Heard Sri T.S.N Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 3. Petitioner while working as Excise Inspector during the period 01.07.2009 to 09.11.2010, an inspection and raid were conducted on various wine shops vide GSL Nos.329 etc, based on certain irregularities, which were within the jurisdiction of the petitioner. Based on the same, a charge memo alleging various illegalities and misconduct was issued to the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, Tribunal Enquiry Case No.454 of 2013 came to be instituted, for which petitioner was called upon to submit explanation. Petitioner submitted explanation. While so, the Tribunal came to be abolished i 3 CGRJ W.P.NoJ1090of2025 have been transferred f,. and all the pending matters to Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) where be pending. Petitioner is proceedings are stated to presently working as Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition & Excise and in view of pendency of aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, he is not being considered for promotion. As the said case is pending, and there iIS no progress, it IS causing grave prejudice, petitioner. The Government agony, pain and suffering to the issued G.O.Ms.No.679 General dated 01.11.2008, fixing inquiries. In the said Administration (Service.C) Department, timelines for early completion of departmental G.O., instructions were issued for expeditious completion of inquiries viz., three months for simple cases and six months for complicated petitioner, are not cases. Since the inquiries, pending against the completed, the above writ petition is filed. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra which Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) abolished by Ordinance No.6 of 2022 Act, 1960 was dated 16.8.2022. The same was published in Part IV-B of the Extraordinary Gazette Pradesh. Pursuant to repeal of the Tribunal G.O.Ms.No.98, General Administration dated 18.8.2022 transferring all the of Andhra the Government issued (Services-E) Department, cases pending on the file of the 4 CGR.J W.P.No.n090of2025 Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to the Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI), to continue the pending proceedings and to dispose of it, in accordance with the statutory rules. Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an employee, are to 5. be completed within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases as per G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. In the case on hand, the petitioner is facing the charges of corrupt motive, abuse of official position and receiving of amount, since 2010. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan\ the Hon’ble Apex Court 6. held as 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 delinquent 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 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 delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it....” (1998) 4 see 154 \\ 5 CGR.J W.P.No.ll090of2025 In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board\ the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: 7. 11. .... The protracted disciplinary enquiry 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 necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. 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 clearly 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. IS 8. 9. In view of the above expressions, employees cannot work under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary proceedings. If no time schedules are fixed for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.679 will be frustrated. 10. In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place around 2010 and the case was registered as Tribunal Enquiry Case No.454 of 2013 and no charges were framed so far. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was abolished in the year 2022. There was 2 (2005) 6 see 636 3 (2012) 11 see 565 6 CGR.J W^P. No.11090 oj 2025 progress in the inquiries till abolition of the Tribunal and now the no file is transferred to the COI. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in of the above discussion, the Commissionerate of Inquiries is directed to conclude the inquiries, within a period of six months from today, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (SER.C) department, dated 12.09.2022. Failing which, the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.544 of 2013, which was transferred to the COI, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.98, dated 18.8.2022, shall stands quashed, if no other inquiry is pending. 11. view With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// / s OFFICER To Secretary to Government, State of Andhra Pradesh, (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, of Prohibition and Excise, State of A.P., Mangalagiri 1. The Principal Revenue 2. The Commissioner Guntur District. 3. One CC to Sri T. S. N. Sudhakar, Advocate [OPUC] GP for Services-l, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CCs to 5. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ANDH^ 0 5 JUN 2025 ^ . Current Section ^ 8=> o.V m) eoh ^// X ORDER WP.No.11090 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS