APHC010038072020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2339 of 2020 Between: 1. K VENKATA RAMANA, , S/O. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUB-INSPECTOR, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI, R/O FLAT NO. 102, NARAYANAPURAM, RAJAHMUNDRY. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (EXCISE-I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION, AND EXCISE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VIJAYAWADA, A.P. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, , KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE TRIBUNAL FOR DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD ...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 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating and continuing disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner for an alleged incident pertaining to the year prior to 2009 vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 20 of 2017 and Rc.No.A/1100/2009 dated 19-06-2013 issued by the 4th and 3rd Respondents respectively and further denying promotion to the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspector on the said ground as being arbitrary, 2 illegal, lit by unexplained delay and laches, contrary to time limit stipulate I for completion of enquiries in G.O. Ms. No. 679 dated 01-11- 2008 and Rule 20 of APCS (CC and A) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the Petitioner is entitled to be considered and promoted as Prohibition and Excise Inspector with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2339 of 2020 ORDER: The petitioner herein was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 1991 and later he was appointed by transfer as Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector in 1997. While so, the 2nd and 3rd respondents initiated departmental action against the petitioner. When the matter was referred to the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the same was registered as Tribunal Enquiry Case No.20 of 2017. Later, a charge memo was issued by the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 19.06.2013 for the alleged disproportionate assets pertaining to the year 2009. 2. The Revenue (Vigilance-V) Department exercising powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 of the A.P.Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991, read with Rule 9 of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980, have re-assigned the case to Sri J.Sathyanarayana, IPS (Retd.) Member as inquiring authority to inquire into the charges framed against the petitioner, who is formerly Sub-Inspector of Prohibition and Excise, IML Depot, Rajahmundry (retired on 30.06.2021) for the allegations of acquisition of disproportionate assets to the known sources of his legal income and with a direction to complete the inquiry expeditiously and 4 submit the inquiry report to the Government for taking further action in the matter. The said Inquiry Officer issued a notice on 22.02.2022 to the petitioner. Subsequent office has not concluded the enquiry as per the notice dated 22.02.2022. Now the present Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for an alleged incident pertaining to the year 2009 on the ground that keeping the said proceedings without concluding the disciplinary proceedings is contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 and prayed to direct the respondents to consider the promotion to the post of Prohibition and Excise Inspector in the interest of justice. 3. The relief prayed by the writ petitioner cannot be granted, as the petitioner was retired from service. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, without adverting to the merits of the case. Moreover, the G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 outlines that the enquiry should be concluded, as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months in any serious offence. 4. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to conclude the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of 5 four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner herein deemed to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 22.09.2026 siva 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2339 of 2020 Date: 22.09.2026 siva