Date of pronouncement : 24-06-2026 Date of uploading : APHC010276782026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 16493/2026 Between: T Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KALE VIJAYA RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.16493 of 2026 O R D E R: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide Proceedings in Rc.No.5856/2015-A2, dated 11.04.2017 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner has been working as Village Revenue Officer. While so, a Charge Memorandum was issued against the Petitioner vide Proceedings in Rc.No.5856/2015-A2, dated 11.04.2017, making certain allegations. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in filing the Writ Petition is that though the Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner in the year 2017 with regard to the issues pertaining to the years 2015, there has been no progress in the enquiry. On account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the future prospects of the Petitioner will be affected. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022, submits that the Government had framed comprehensive 3 guidelines fixing definite time frame for expediting the process of disciplinary cases in supersession of the previous guidelines. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in simple cases, the enquiry should be completed within three months and in complicated cases, the enquiry should be completed within five to six months and seeks for expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and to quash the disciplinary enquiry in default. The counsel relied on similar orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.11776 and 11779 of 2021, W.P.No.17380 of 2021, W.P.No.17430 of 2021, W.P.No.17617 of 2021, W.P.No.5887 of 2025 etc. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that due to certain administrative issues, there is delay, however, submitted that the enquiry would be completed as expeditiously as possible as mandated under the G.O.Ms.No.91 relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel and taking note of the submissions made by the Assistant Government Pleader and the orders of this Court with reference to similarly placed employees, this Court is of the opinion that the Government had issued the comprehensive guidelines for conclusion of departmental proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.91General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 4 12.09.2022 and Clause 5 (ix) would be relevant for disposal of this case which reads as under: ‘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 Minister.’ 7. Considering the fact that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner with regard to the issues pertaining to the year 2015 have been pending since 2017, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The Respondent Authorities shall conclude the enquiry against the Petitioner within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) The Petitioner shall cooperate for expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. iii) In the event, the enquiry is not concluded within the time frame specified above, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner shall stand quashed without further reference to this Court. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. 5 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 24.06.2026 Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned ☑ Reportable Non-reportable ☑ eha 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.16493 of 2026 Dated: 24.06.2026 eha