Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010451072026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 26064/2026 Between: 1. A CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O A.CHANDRA MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, R/O R/O 6-1/3, GOLLAPUDI, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE, AHDD AND FISHERIES, A.P.SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, KRINSHNA DISTRICT.520001 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN,AND MEMBERS,A.P.SECRETARIAT , VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238 ...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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ order or 2 direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deferring the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint director of Fisheries, for the panel year 2024-2025 vide its order dated 10.04.2025 passed by the 1st respondent referring the pending disciplinary proceedings G.O.Rt.No.110 dated 12.04.2024, without concluding the disciplinary proceedings as per the time limit stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022, is arbitrary,illegal and violation of the Article 14, 16 (4) and 21 of the Constitution of India and the principles of natural justice, consequently set aside the rejection orders dated 10.04.2025 and direct the respondents for not concluding the disciplinary proceedings as per G.O.Ms.No.91 the petitioner to promote the post of Joint Director of Fisheries for the panel year 2025-2026, without referring the disciplinary proceedings, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint director of Fisheries without reference to the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.110 dated 12.04.2024 issued by the 1st respondent, in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P MALLIKHARJUNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.26064 of 2026 O R DE R: This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondents in deferring promotion to the post of Joint Director, Fisheries to the Petitioner for the panel year 2024-25 referring to the pending disciplinary proceedings against him and without concluding the same as per the time limit stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner was appointed as Fisheries Development Officer in the year 2001. Subsequently, he was promoted as Deputy Director of Fishers in 2020 and was given FAC to the post of Joint Director of Fisheries, Eluru District from 23.09.2020 to11.06.2021. While so, a charge memo was issued alleging certain irregularities. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 20 read with Rule 24 of A.P.Civil Service (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and issued Article of Charges vide G.O.Rt.No.110 dated 12.04.2024. The Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. 4 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in filing the writ petition is that though the charge memorandum was issued in the month of April, 2024, and despite denying the allegations, there has been no progress in the enquiry and no Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer were appointed by till date. Though he is entitled for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Fisheries, due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, his candidature was not considered for promotion. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner 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 disciplinary cases and restricts his relief for expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II would submit that the enquiry would be completed as expeditiously as possible as mandated under the G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022. 6. Heard Sri P.Mallikharjuna Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 5 7. 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.’ 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Respondent No.1 shall ensure that the enquiry shall be concluded within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The Petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. 6 (iii) In the event, enquiry is not concluded within time specified, the Disciplinary Authority, as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be answerable for the delay. (iv) No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 16.09.2026 KLP