IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE Tt V PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3666 OF 2025 Between: Smt. T.K.Usha Rani, W/o. K.Bhaskar, aged about 59 years, Occ:Addl.Child Development Project Officer, O/o The Regional Joint Director Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Kurnool-518 002. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director, Women Development and Child Welfare Department State of Andhra Pradesh Guntur, 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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the Charge Memo No. WDC02-11024/10/2019-Vig-WDCW dated 14.12.2020 (allegations relates to the year 2015) issued by the 2"'^ respondent as void, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner with all consequential benefits. u lA 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 igeased may be pleased to stay all further action in pursuance to the Charge . Memo No. WDC02- 11024/10/2019-Vig-WDCW dated 14.12.2020 issued by the 2"^^ respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.JAGADISH Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SARATH, ASST.GP FOR SERVICES-II The Court made the following: ORDER /i 4 APHC010067592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] / WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3666/2025 Between: 1.SMT. T.K.USHA RANI, W/0. K.BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC - ADDL.CHILD DEVOLOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, 0/0 THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KURNOOL-518 002. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DIRECTOR, WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE DEPARTMENT STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT. PRINCIPAL WOMEN DEVELOPMENT AND CHILD WELFARE ...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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Charge Memo No. WDC02-11024/10/2 019- Vig-WDCW dated 14.12.2020 (allegations relates to the year 2015) issued by the 2nd respondent as void, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and aside the same on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner with all consequential benefits and pass set SRS.J W.P.No.3666 of 2025 lA 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 to stay all further action in pursuance to the Charge Memo No. WDC02- 11024/10/2019-Vig-WDCW dated 14.12.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S JAGADISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following; :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed assailing the charge memo issued vide NO.WDC02-11024/10/2019-Vig-WDCW. dated 14.12.2020 (Ex.P1), as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sarath, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - II appeared for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitionerwas appointed as Supervisor Grade - I in 1993 through APPSC. Later, the petitioner was promoted to CDPO in September, 2009 and worked at Maldakal, Gadwal, Jogulamba Gadwal District from 30.09.2009 to 31.03.2016. After bifurcation, the petitioner was allotted to the State of Andhra Pradesh on 11.04.2016. The petitioner will retire from service on 30.06.2028. 2. 3. A charge memo vide No.WDC02-11024/10/2019-Vig-WDCW, dated 14.12.2020 (Ex.P1) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an 4. SRS J W.P.No.3666 of 2025 explanation dated 10.02.2021. However, the inquiry has not been concluded so far. 5. Sri Sarath, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services — II, on instructions, would submit that the inquiry will be concluded in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. As seen from Ex.P1 charge memo, five charges have been framed against the petitioner. A perusal of the Articles of Charges would disclose that the petitioner has drawn the excess amount, while working as CDPO, ICDS Project, Maldakal, Jogulamba Gadwal District, during the year 2015. Thus, for the alleged irregularities of the year 2015, the charge memo vide Ex.PI issued and the petitioner submitted an explanation on 10.02.2021. The Government issued 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, fixing the timelines to complete the inquiry within six months in complicated and three months in simple cases respectively. However, for the reasons best known, the respondent authorities have not concluded the inquiry so far. 6. was 7. 8. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan\ the Hon’ble Apex Court 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 (1998) 4 see 154 SRS,J W.P.No.3666 of 2025 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 unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it....” 9. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board^, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: IS “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 The appellant had already suffered enough and more on enquiry, account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary than the punishment. For the proceedings would be much more mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. In the case at hand, the respondent authorities failed to adhere to 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. For the fault on the part of the disciplinary authority, in not concluding the inquiry, the petitioner shall not be penalized. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondent authorities to conclude the inquiry in terms 10. 11. 2 (2005) 6 see 636 ^ SRS.J W.P,No.3666 of 2025 of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, within six (06) months. If the respondent authorities fail to conclude the inquiry within the time stipulated, the aforementioned charge memo framed against the petitioner, shall stand quashed automatically, without reference to any further orders. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SE(^^ OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Women Development & Child Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Director, Women Development & Child Welfare Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. One CC to Sri S.Jagadish, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED:12/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3666 of 2025 1 1 MAR 2025 . Current Section . ^ S»i£^spatcv'5S^^^ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS