APHC010091902026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 5613/2026 Between: 1. CH V SOMA SEKHAR, S/O RAG HUMADHA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (RETIRED), R/O FLAT NO. 202, 3RD FLOOR, DOCTORS PARADISE APARTMENTS, CSR KALYANA MANDAPAM ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. - 522238 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF ROADS AND BUILDINGS, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, A.P. - 520001 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER ROADS AND BUILDINGS, R AND B, CIRCLE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. - 532001 ...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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings issued vide G.O.Rt.No.30 dated 23.01.2016 and Memo No. TRB01-21/9/2018-VIG(R and B), dated 11.11.2023 issued by the 1st respondent Government even after the inquiry report dated 07.03.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents to release the retirement benefits due to the petitioner i.e., 1) Gratuity and 2) Encashment of Earned Leave along with 12 percent interest 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 stay all further proceedings relating to the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.30 dated 23.01.2016 and Memo No. TRB01-21/9/2018- Vig(r&b), dated 11.11.2023 issued by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of this writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 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 to direct the respondents to release the retirement benefits due to the petitioner i.e., 1) Gratuity and 2) Encashment of Earned Leave along with 12% interest, pending disposal of this writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings issued vide G.O.Rt.No.30 dated 23.01.2016 and Memo No.TRB01-21/9/2018-VIG(R and B), dated 11.11.2023 issued by the 1st respondent Government even after the inquiry report dated 07.03.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents to release the retirement benefits due to the petitioner i.e., 1) Gratuity and 2) Encashment of Earned Leave along with 12 percent interest and pass…” 2. The facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was initially appointed as Deputy Executive Engineer in Roads and Buildings Department in the year 1986 and he was promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 2000 and further he was promoted as Superintendent Engineer in the year 2007. Petitioner also discharged his duties as incharge Chief Engineer in the year 2017. On 31.05.2025, the Petitioner was retired from service as Superintending Engineer. While so, the Vigilance and Enforcement Department conducted an inspection and making certain observations in the works performed in the year 2011-2012 and issued a report No.53. The said observations were made without following standard scientific testing methods and without verification of relevant departmental records and without considering the completion certificate and quality control reports. Based on the said report, after four months on 03.10.2015, the Respondent No.1 initiated common disciplinary proceedings on 10 officers involved in those works. Among them, six charged officers were retired; two charged officers were expired and four charged officers were holding the office. The Articles of charges were dropped on the officers, who had expired, initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the remaining charged officers. Pursuant to the common disciplinary proceedings, Articles of Charges were framed against the Petitioner after three months vide G.O.Rt.No.30, dated 23.01.2016 for the allegations relating to the year 2011-2012. The Petitioner had submitted a detailed written statement defence on 30.07.2016. The Inquiring Authority conducted inquiry and submitted a report dated 07.03.2022 stating that the charge against the Petitioner was held as “not proved”. Despite categorical findings, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note vide Memo dated 11.11.2023 based on a report and opinion of the Chief Technical Engineer. The Petitioner had submitted an explanation on 11.11.2023, but even after lapse of two years, the Respondents did not take steps to conclude the proceedings. Hence, the instant Writ Petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite long lapse of several years, the Respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings, though the Petitioner was retired from service. By virtue of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the Respondents did not release the retirement and other benefits to the Petitioner. 5. Considering the submissions made, this Court opined that even after lapse of a decade, the Respondents did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings is quite contrary to the instructions in Clause 5(ix) issued vide G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, which reads as follows:- “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 Minster.” 6. Whereas in the instant case, it is very clear that even after four (04) years of final report, the Respondents did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings. In that view this Court without touching the merits of the case, considering the submissions made by counsel on both sides, inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 27.02.2026 M K K 330 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.5613 of 2026 Dated: 27.02.2026 M K K