Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 4641 (AP)

CHILAKANTI PURNACHANDRA RAO v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/33645/2023 · 2026-07-07

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2026 Date of uploading : 09.07.2026 APHC010652222023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 33645/2023 BETWEEN: 1. CHILAKANTI PURNACHANDRA RAO, S/O. RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, EARLIER POLICE CONSTABLE, PENAMALURU POLICE STATION, PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASI, II TOWN POLICE STATION, VIJAYAWADA-520002. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST., 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, A.P. POLICE HEAD QUARTERS BUILDING, MANGLAGIRI, GUNTUR DIST., 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INQUIRIES, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, INQUIRY AUTHORITY STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 to pass orders to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, questioning the in-action of the Respondents in failing to concluding the long pending impugned charge memo issued to the Petitioner by the Tribunal Disciplinary Proceedings in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 31/2013, which relates to the year 2011, in terms of G.O. MS. No. 679 dated 1-11-2018 (General Administration(service C) Department ), as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of specific instructions of the Government and the consistent net of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court in various Writ Petitions and further by applying the analogy laid down in P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 SCC page 636 and the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 20872/2018, 13520/2019, 1275/2020, 11776/2021, 11779/2021, 15555/2021, 15595/2021, 15831/2021 dated 22-02-2023 and 26839/2023 dated 12.10.2023, accordingly set aside the same, as quashed and also to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in failing to conclude long pending charge memo issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.31 of 2013, which relates to the year 2011 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2018 General Administration Services (C) Department, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of specific instructions of the Government and the consistent net of order passed by the Honble Supreme Court and this Honble Court in various Writ Petitions. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed order copy in W.P. No.14024 of 2026 dated 08.05.2026 and requested this Court to dispose of the Writ Petition in terms of the same order, as the reliefs in both the writ petitions are identical in nature. The said order indicates that the respondents were directed to conclude the enquiry against the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and the petitioners were directed to cooperate for expeditious completion of the enquiry. In the event of failure to conclude the enquiry within the aforesaid time frame, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners shall stand quashed without further reference to the Court. 4 3. Extending the same order, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings vide Charge memo issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent in Tribunal Enquiry Case No.31/2013, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner shall stand quashed without further reference to the Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 08.07.2026 Harin Whether the order is: Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 5 109 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 33645 OF 2023 Date: 08-07-2026 Harin