IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ eighteenth day of FEBRUARvfe TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ^ the honourable sruuItice subba WRIT petition NO: nc REDDY SATTI 2025 Between; Dy. EE (Retd^)^°’o^o° TW^^Sub^DiVis^on^^’^^ division, Vizianagaram District i'nnw Man’ Parvathipuram R/o .DoorNo 12-14-18/13. Padm'avathi ...Petitioner AND LabbfpeirvJayawS, ^^iSin'^DistricL®'’®'*"’®"'' Colony. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 the circumstances stated i be pleased to i- of the Constitution of India in the affidavit filed therewith praying that in the High Court may issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare Respondents in not concluding the disciplinary against the Petitioner vide Charge Memo 17.06.2014 and Charge 26.08.2021 and the action of the proceedings pending Proc., NO.B2/CB3/202/2014-5 dt NO.A4/3062/4597352/2011 Memo in Proc., making inordinate delay i proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Respondents to dt concluding the disciplinary and violative of Articles 14, consequently, direct the against the by the Government in conclude the disciplinary proceedings Petitioner, forthwith. as per the time schedule fixed vide G.O.Rt.No.679 (GAD), dt 01.11.2008, (or) drop proceedings as per the settled Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the ground of inordinate delay and settle the pension and other benefits to the Petitioner. the disciplinary lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to direct the Respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings pending against the Petitioner, forthwith may be as per the time schedule fixed by the Government vide G.O. Rt. No. 679 (GAD), dt; 01.11.2008, by extending the ratio of the orders in WP No. 1865/2020, dt; 30.01.2020 and confirmed in W.A.NO. 45/2021. dt; 20.03.2021 and also in WP.No.7266/2024 dt;09.07.2024, in favor of the Petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition. as as per the orders Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - II The Court made the following order: \ APHC010079472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] -173 TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4288/2025 Between: 1.TUTIKA MOHAN RAO, S/0 CHINNA BABU (LATE), AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC DY. EE (RETD.), BHADRAGIRI, 0/0 TW SUB-DIVISION, PARVATHIPURAM DIVISION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, (NOW MANYAM PARVATHIPURAM DISTRICT), R/0. DOOR NO 12-14-18/13, PADMAVATHI NAGAR, LBS COLONY, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, REVENUE COLONY, LABBIPETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings pending against the Petitioner vide Charge Memo Proc., NO.B2/CB3/202/2014-5 dt 17.06.2014 and Charge Memo in Proc. NO.A4/3062/4597352/2011 dt 26.08.2021 and making SRS.J W.P.No.4288 of 2025 inordinate delay in U-* concluding the disciplinary proceedinos aq HoLrAS Court ‘he and otherLe^rcrpXr illegal, 21 of the conclude lA NO: 1 OF 7n7A; £lsi?;?|5=s Government vide G.O. Rt. No. 679 fGADI Ht- ni ratio of the orders in WP No. 1865/2020 df 30 01 2020 and^a W.A.NO. 45/2021. dt: 20 03 2021 _ and as confirmed in Of the abovetSioh a^ ot -'" pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri P. Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner and Pleader for Services - II appeared Sri Sarath, learned Assistant Government for the respondents. 2. A charge memo v/de proceedings No.B2/CB3/202/2014-5 17.06.2014 (Ex.P1) was issued against the petitioner. The dated petitioner submitted SRS.J W.P.No.4288 of 2025 an explanation through the proper channel on 15.06.2016 (Ex.P2). An inquiry officer was appointed vide G.O.Rt.No.243 Social Welfare (TW.Ser.A2) Department, dated 08.08.2022 (Ex.P3). However, the inquiry has not been concluded so far. Another charge memo vide proceedings NO.A4/3062/4597352/2011, dated 26.08.2021 (Ex.P4) was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 06.09.2021 (Ex.P5). The inquiry officer was not appointed. Pending the aforementioned charge memos, the petitioner retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to the pendency of the aforementioned charge memos, the retirement benefits of the petitioner have not been released so far. Learned counsel would also submit that 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, the inquiry has not been concluded so 3. far. Sri Sarath, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - II appeared for the respondents would submit that the respondent authorities will conclude the inquiry, within three months, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. 4. As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute about the issuance of the aforementioned charge memo and the petitioner's retirement from service on 31.12.2021. However, the respondent authorities, for the reasons best known, failed to conclude the inquiry. 5. SRS,J W.P.No.4288 of 2025 In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan\ the Hon’ble Apex Court held as 6. 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....” 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 inJhe 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 (1998) 4 see 154 ^ (2005) 6 see 636 SRS.J W.P.No.4288 of 2025 disciplinary proceedings, the appellant suffer. ’’ should not be made to 8. In the case at hand, the respondent authorities timelines fixed failed to adhere to the in G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) and G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration Department, dated 01.11.2008 (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. For the fault, on the part of the disciplinary authority, in not conciuding the inquiry, the petitioner shall penalized. not be 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, 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, strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, within three (03) conclude the inquiry, within the charge memos issued against the to any further orders. No months. If the respondent authorities fail to time stipulated, the aforementioned petitioner, shall stand quashed, without reference order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions //TRUE COPY// if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA assistant registrar To, SECTION OFFICER , State Labbipete, Vijayawada, K^shn'^Disthcb Colony, 3. One CC to Sri Poodattu Amarender, Advocate [OPUCJ High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 4. Two CCs to GP for Services - [OUT] 5. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:1 8/02/2025 I* 01 APR 2025 ^ Current Secuon * ^ ORDER WP.No.4288 of 2025 disposing of the WP WITHOUT COSTS