Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 53151 (AP)

L PARANDHAMA NAIDU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/28335/2025 · 2025-10-14

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010548342025 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: 28335/2025 Between: 1. L PARANDHAMA NAIDU, L.PARANDHAMA NAIDU, S/O. LATE L.MUNASWAMY, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC PHARMACY OFFICER, PHC, GANGAVARAM, CHITTOOR DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH MEDICAL AND FAMILY WELFARE (VC.I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, A.P. VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R DISTRICT. 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA. RESPONDENTS. ...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 tomay be to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein, more particularly the1st respondent in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance to the impugned vide G.O.Rt.No.175, HM and FW (VC.I) Department, dated 9-5-2018 till now, highly illegal, arbitrary and also in violation of the guidelines issued 2 under G.O.Ms.No.91, GAD, dated 12-9-2022 and consequentially the Honble Curt may pleased to set aside the impugned charge Memo as G.O.Rt.No.175, HM and FW (VC.I) Department, dated 9-5-2018 on the ground of delay and latches in concluding the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the incident occurred in March, 2013 and consequentially declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Senior Pharmacy Officer as per the Revised Final Seniority list prepared vide Rc.No.950/Cl/2024, dated 24-10-2024 and may 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 may be pleased direct the respondents herein to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion as Senior Pharmacy Officer as per the Revised Final Seniority list prepared vide Rc.No.950/C1/2024, dated 24-10-2024, without reference to the impugned charge Memo G.O.Rt.No.175, HM&FW (VC.I) Department, dated 9-5-2018 and may pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R TAGORE 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.28288 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings issued on 09.05.2018 vide G.O.Rt.No.175, HM & FW(VC.I) Department by the 1st respondent. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows: The petitioner was initially appointed as Pharmacist Gr-II vide Proc.Rc.No.5169/E1C/89, dated 12.10.1990, and was re- designated as Pharmacy Officer subsequently. While the petitioner was working as Pharmacy Officer at PHC Gudipala of Chittoor District, the petitioner was temporarily deployed to the District Store at the office of the DMHO, Chittoor, to look after the maintenance of the receipts and distribution of medicines. As there were certain discrepancies in the distribution of drugs to PHCs, the DMHO, Chittoor issued proceedings dated 09.05.2018 to conduct common disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and six other employees. Based on the Vigilance Report No. 10, dated 29.01.2018, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner vide impugned G.O. Rt. No. 175 (Health, Medical and Family Welfare (VC.I) Department), dated 09.05.2018. The articles of charges framed are as follows: “That Pharmacist Gr-II, 0/0 Naidu, L.Parandhama Sri DM&HO, Chittoor failed to check whether the supplied drugs are as per terms & 4 conditions issued in procurement orders and did not inform the higher authorities about violation of the condition No. 3 of the procurement orders. Charge-II: That Sri L.Parandhama Naidu, Pharmacist Gr-II, O/O DM&HO, Chittoor failed to supervise and check the distribution process of drugs to PHCs. Fictitious quantities have been supplied..” 3. Sri M.R.Tagore, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner has submitted statement of defence, no further progress was recorded in the enquiry which lead to filing of this present writ petition and the disciplinary enquiry hindering the chances of promotion of the petitioner. 4. Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the respondent officials would take appropriate steps to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. 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 four (4) 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 5 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 158 WRIT PETITION No.28335 of 2025 Dt.15-10-2025 MH