[3506 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA^NARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 13059 OF 2025 Between: Kommanaboyina Nageswara Rao, S/o K. Chenchu Ramaiah Aged about 61 years Occ Presently Working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, R/o Narasaraopet.City Palnadu District. A.P ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP), For the state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Secretary, Hyderabad. The Chairman, .Departmental Promotion Committee Andhra Pradesh Police Department, O/o the Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents is not concluding the long pending charges vide Tribunal enquiry Case No. 105 of 2013 which relates Crime No. 01/RCO-ACB- VJA/2012 of the ACB Vijayawada Range and notice issued dated 04-07- 2017 by 3'"^ respondents and same in conclude within three months in' terms of G.O.Ms.No. 679 GA (SER.C) department dt 01-11-2008 arbitrary illegal and violation of existing specific instructions of the government, apart from violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as well as the judgment of the honble Apex Court, reported in P.V.MAHADEVAN Vs M.D TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD accordingly set-aside the same by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get all department benefits for his meritorious service and regular promotion for Additional Superintendent of Police same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3'"^ respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendant of police without reference to the Tribunal enquiry Case No. 105 of 2013 issued by 3'’'' respondent Pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: as and : SRI. PONNEKANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO APHC010257762025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] y FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 13059/2025 Between: Kommanaboyina Nageswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PONNEKANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 2 HCGR,1 W.P.No.13059 of 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents is not concluding the long pending charges vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 105 of 2013 which relates Crime No.OI/RCO-ACB-VJA/2012 of the ACB Vijayawada Range and notice issued dated 21-06-2017 by 3^'^ respondents and same in conclude within three months in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 GA (SER.C) department dt 01-11-2008, as arbitrary, illegal and violation of existing specific instructions of the government, apart from violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and as well as the judgment of the hon’ble Apex Court, reported in P.V.MAHADEVAN Vs M.D TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, and accordingly set-aside the same by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to get all department benefits for his meritorious service and regular promotion for Additional Superintendent of Police same and pass such other order or orders....” Heard Sri P.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel for the 2. petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. Petitioner while working as Inspector of Police in the year 2010, in pursuance to surprise check conducted at Karimnagar Town on 13.12.2011, certain amount was seized alleged to be bribe 3. amount for having favoured some of the owners of wine shops. For which. Crime No.15/RCO-ACB-KNR/2011 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a)&(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 34, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 41(1)(a) and 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Basing the same, petitioner was proceeded with 3 HCGR.J W.P.No.l3059of2025 departmental proceedings by initiating Tribunal Enquiry Case No.105 of 2013, charge memo came to be issued on 21.06.2017. For which, petitioner has submitted explanation refuting the same, and the same is stated to be pending. Meanwhile, after conclusion of investigation in aforesaid crime and also in connected Crime No.01/RCO-ACB-VJA/2012, charge 4. sheet came to be filed, which later numbered as C.C.No.18 of 2013, the file learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, pending for trial. Insofar as, disciplinary proceedings are concerned, except for issuance of charge sheet after initiation of TEC, nothing has moved forward. While so, the Tribunal came to be abolished and all the pending matters have been transferred to Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) where proceedings are stated to Petitioner is presently working as Deputy on be pending. Superintendent of Police and in view of pendency of aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, he is not being considered for promotion. As the said case is pending, and there is no progress, it is causing grave prejudice, agony, pain and suffering to the petitioner. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, fixing timelines for early completion of departmental inquiries. In the said G.O., instructions issued for expeditious completion of inquiries viz., three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases. were % HCGRJ W.P.No.13059 of2025 " , are not Since the inquiries, pending against the petitioner completed, the above writ petition is filed. 5. 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 Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) abolished by Ordinance No.6 of 2022, dated 16.8.2022. which Act, 1960 was The same was published in Part IV-B of the Extraordinary Gazette of Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant to repeal of the Tribunal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, General Administration (Services-E) Department, dated 18.8.2022 transferring all the cases pending on the file of the 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. 6. Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an employee, are to 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. the case on hand, the petitioner is facing the charges of corrupt motive, abuse of official position and receiving of amount, since 2012. In 5 HCGRJ W.P.No.l3059of2025 In State of A.P, v. N. Radhakishan\ the Hon’ble Apex Court 7. 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....” 8. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board^, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: 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 is 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 9. 1 (1998) 4 see 154 2 (2005) 6 see 636 3 (2012) 11 see 565 6 % HCGR,I W.P.No.13059 of 2025 sheet is quashed, this Court must consider the gravity of the charge and all other relevant factors before coming to the said conclusion. 10. 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. 11. In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place around 2012 and the case was registered as Tribunal Enquiry Case No.105 of 2013 and no charges were framed so far. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was abolished in the year 2022. There was no progress in the inquiries till abolition of the Tribunal and now the file is transferred to the COI. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view 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. 105 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. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 HCCRJ W.P.No.l3059of2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P. 2. The Director General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P. Pradesh, 3. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP), For the state of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Its Secretary, Hyderabad. 4. The Chairman, Departmental Promotion Committee Andhra Pradesh Police Department, O/o the Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, A.P.(1 to 4 by RPAD) 5. One CC to SRI. PONNEKANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO Advocate [OPUG] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies KSR HIGH COURT DATED:09/05/2025 ORDER 'm 18 OCT 2025 jSl ^ -isvcufwn y WP.No.13059 Of 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS