APHC010180142026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 9140/2026 Between: 1. MALLA LOKESWARA RAO, S/O LATE APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RETIRED SUB TREASURY OFFICER R/O K P BRUNDAVANAM, COLLECTOR OFFICE ROAD, ANAKAPAILI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522238. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS, ANDHRA PRADESH, 1 FLOOR, NIDHI BHAVAN, BEHIND APIIC BUILDING, I T PARK, MANGALAGIRI 522503, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522503 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE, P AND T COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530013 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the period of suspension, i.e., four (4) years and six (6) months, as on duty, including the release of increments and full pension (25% remains to be paid), as bad, arbitrary, and contrary to the A.P. Fundamental Rules 53(B)(III) and the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. 3. The petitioner, while working as Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent at Eluru, was issued a charge memo in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.101 of 2013, dated 06.01.2017, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad, initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. After initiation of the aforesaid proceedings, there has been no progress in the matter. Even till date, the enquiry has not been completed and the same is still pending, though the issue relates to the period 2010–2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration 3 (Service.C) Department, dated 01.11.2018, fixing time-limit for early completion of departmental inquiries. In the said G.O., instructions were issued for expeditious completion of inquiries viz., three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases. Since the inquiries, pending against the petitioner, are not completed, the above writ petition is filed. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, which was constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 was abolished by Ordinance No.6 of 2022, dated 16.8.2022. The same was published in Part IV–B of the Extraordinary Gazette of Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant to repeal of the Tribunal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, General Administration (Services–E) Department, dated 18.8.2022 transferring all the cases pending on the file of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to the Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI), to continue the pending proceedings and to dispose of it, in accordance with the statutory rules. 6. Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an employee, are to be completed within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases as per G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services–C) Department dated 01.11.2008. 4 7. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan1, 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 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….” 8. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board2, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “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 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 the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.” 9. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha3, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that before the charge 1 (1998) 4 SCC 154 2 (2005) 6 SCC 636 3 (2012) 11 SCC 565 5 sheet is quashed, this Court must consider the gravity of the charge and all other relevant factors before coming to the said conclusion. 10. In view of the above expressions, employees cannot work under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary proceedings. If no time schedules are fixed for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.679 will be frustrated. 11. In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place around 2010-2012, but there was no progress in the inquiries till abolition of the Tribunal and now the file is transferred to the COI. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, the Commissionerate of Inquiries is directed to conclude the inquiries, within a period of six months from today, failing which the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.464 dated 09.05.2023 issued by the 1st respondent, shall stands quashed. 13. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Date:07.04.2026 klk 6 235 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 9140/2026 Date:07.04.2026 klk