APHC010694022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 35641/2025 Between: 1. KOLA DEVA PRASAD, S/O SEETHA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC RETIRED CIRCLE INSPECTOR, R/O.7-20-1126, 29TH LINE, SARADA COLONY, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT A.P.- 522002. 2. KOLASANI CHENNAKESWARLU, S/O. SEETHA RAMAAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC RETIRED CIRCLE INSPECTOR, R/O. D.NO.93-4-216/1, A.T AGRAHARAM, 3RD LINE, GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522004. 3. SAMINENI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC RETIRED CIRCLE INSPECTOR, FLAT NO. 401, MARUTHI APARTMENT, MARUTHI NAGAR, GUNTUR, A.P- 522006 4. CHIRITHOTI VIJAYA BHASKARA RAO,, S/O RAGHAVULU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE O/O D.G.P OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522002 5. ALLA SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O JANARDHAN RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, O/0 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GUNTUR URBAN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P.-522002 6. SINGIRESU SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR, TENALI III-TOWN, GUNTUR URBAN GUNTUR DISTRICT A.P.-522002 2 7. GUNJI HAZRATH BABU, S/O YANADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR, R/O. D.NO.4-144, UPPALAPADU, PEDAPUTHEDU, NELLORE, NELLORE DISTRICT A. P-524317 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 503 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.522 503 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS TDP, FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP, BY ITS SECRETARY, HYDERABAD.500 001 4. THE CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE DEPARTMENT, O/O THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 503. ...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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 109 of 2013 and the subsequent Notice No. 96/COI.RPT/2023, arising out of Crime No. 01/RCO- ACB-VJA/2012 of ACB, Vijayawada Range, despite the lapse of several years and in violation of G.O. Ms. No. 679, G.A. (Ser.c) Department, dated 01.11.2008, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.V. Mahadevan v. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (2005) 5 SCC 611, as well as the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 23.07.2020 in W.P. No. 17544 of 2020, and consequently quash the same and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 3 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 to stay all further proceedings in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 109 of 2013 and the subsequent Notice No. 96/COI.RPT/2023, pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PONNEKANTI MALLIKARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.35641 of 2025 ORDER : The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the Respondents in concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide Proceedings TEC No.109/2013, dated 21.06.2017 and subsequent Notice NO.96/COI.RPT/2023, arising out of Crime No.01/RCO- ACB-VJA/2012 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts relevant to the purpose of this case are as under: The 1st petitioner was retired from service as a Circle Inspector of Police. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were also retired from service as Circle Inspectors during the years 2017 and 2018. The 4th petitioner is presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police and petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7 are working as Circle Inspectors of Police. While working, raids were conducted by the ACB personnel on all the liquor shops and their offices, and cases were booked against several Officers including the petitioners, which was numbered as TEC No. 109 of 2013 before the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, but there is no progress after the lapse of several years. 3. The grievance of the petitioners in filing the Writ Petition is that though the Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the petitioners in the year 2013 with regard to the issues pertaining to the years 2011 and 2012, respectively, there has been no progress in the enquiry. On account of the 5 pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the future prospects of the petitioners will be affected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 and to quash the disciplinary enquiry in default. The counsel relied on similar orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.11776 and 11779 of 2021, W.P.No.17380 of 2021, W.P.No.17430 of 2021, W.P.No.17617 of 2021, W.P.No.5887 of 2025 etc. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that due to certain administrative issues, there is delay, however, submitted 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 petitioners. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and taking note of the submissions made by the Assistant Government Pleader and the orders of this Court with reference to similarly placed employees, this Court is of the opinion that the Government had issued the comprehensive guidelines for conclusion of 6 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: “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.’ 7. Considering the fact that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioners with regard to the issues pertaining to the years 2011 and 2012, respectively, have been pending since 2013, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Respondent Authorities shall conclude the enquiry against the Petitioner within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The petitioners shall cooperate for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. 7 (iii) In the event, the enquiry is not concluded within the time frame specified above, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioners shall stand quashed without further reference to this Court. (iv) No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J Date: 22.12.2025 SNI 8 262 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 35641/2025 DATE: 22.12.2025 SNI