1 APHC010185762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 9705/2026 Between: 1. GUMMAPU RATNA RAJU, S/O VENKANNA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HOME DEPARTMENT, NOW ON DEPUTATION AS DSP, RAILWAYS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 522238 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE A P, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522503 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENQUIRES, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, INQUIRY AUTHORITY, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.-522238 ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings initiated in TEC No. 15 of 2013 dated 06.12.2013,despite failure to complete the same within the prescribed time as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently quash the said proceedings, and extend the benefit of the orders passed in W.P. Nos. 15555 of 2021 and 15595 of 2021 final orders dated.22.03.2023 to the petitioner, 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 conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated in TEC No. 15 of 2013 dated 06.12.2013, in a time frame with a default clause as directed in W.P. Nos. 15555 of 2021 and 15595 of 2021 final orders dated:22.03.2023 final orders dated:22.03.2023 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- 3 “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending disciplinary proceedings dated 06.12.2013 issued by the respondents, for the incident pertaining to the year 2013, as illegal arbitrary and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 3. The petitioner while working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Home Department now on deputation as DSP, Railways, Vijayawada. Though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide TEC No.15/2013 in the year 2013, they were no concluded even till today. The petitioner is going to be retiring on 30.04.2026. The petitioner has submitted his explanation denying the charges framed against him. But the respondents have not taken any action to conclude the disciplinary proceedings and thereby the petitioner was put to irreparable loss and hardship. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (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. 4 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. 5 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.” 1 (1998) 4 SCC 154 2 (2005) 6 SCC 636 6 9. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha3, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that before the charge 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 in the year 2013, but there was no progress in the inquiries till now. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the inquiries, within a period of six months from today, failing which the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide TEC No.15 of 2013 dated 06.12.2013, issued by the respondents, shall stand quashed. No order as to costs. 3 (2012) 11 SCC 565 7 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date:15.04.2026 GK 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 9705 of 2026 Dated:15.04.2026 GK