APHC010194582026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 10018/2026 Between: 1. A MOHAN, S/O. A.SUBBA RATNAM, AGED 61 YEARS, OCC JOINT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, O/O. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NTR BHAVAN, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, rep by its Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District-522238. ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide Charge Memos G.O.Rt.No. 1006 TRANSPORT ROADS and BUILDING (VIG-III) DEPARTMENT dated 03.10.2006 (issue relating to the year 1994-1999) against the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Regional Transport Officer (RTO) in the 1990s through direct recruitment by APPSC. He was subsequently promoted as Deputy Transport Commissioner (DTC) in the year 1999 and later as Joint Transport Commissioner in 2025. While working as RTO, Nizamabad (1994–1999), a charge memo dated 03.10.2006 was issued by the Government under Rule 20 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, alleging that the petitioner permitted misuse of a driving school vehicle and framed two additional charges. The charge memo was communicated to him only on 08.04.2011, to which he submitted a detailed explanation on 15.04.2011 denying all allegations and asserting that no rules under the Motor Vehicles Act were violated. After a prolonged delay, an enquiry officer was appointed on 15.02.2024, nearly 18 years after issuance of the charge memo, with no substantial progress in the enquiry. Hence the writ petition. 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. Since the inquiries, pending against the petitioner, are not completed, the above writ petition is filed. 5. 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. 6. 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….” 1 (1998) 4 SCC 154 7. 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.” 8. 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. 09. 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. 10. 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.1006 dated 03.10.2006 issued by the 1st respondent, shall stands quashed. 2 (2005) 6 SCC 636 3 (2012) 11 SCC 565 11. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 16.04.2026 klk 163 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 10018/2026 16.04.2026 klk