JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri V. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Srinivasarao, learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Services - I.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief :

“...to issue appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner vide G.O. Rt. No.757 Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 25.07.2017 though the list of prohibited properties was communicated after Petitioner’s transfer from S.R.O, Jangareddygudem on 29.09.2014 for an alleged incident pertaining the period prior to the year 2014 and continuing the proceedings at the instance of Vigilance Commission even after a lapse of more than six (6) years from the date of alleged incident, as being erroneous, based on mistake of fact, arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by delay and lapses, contrary to time limit stipulated for completion of enquiries in G.O. Ms. No. 679, dated 01. 11. 2018 and provisions of Rule 20 of A.P.C.S (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the charge memo issued in G.O. Rt. No.757, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 25.07.2017 accordingly in the interest of justice and to pass such order or orders...”

3. Sri V. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was initially recruited and appointed by direct recruitment as Sub-Registrar Grade-II in the Registration and Stamps Department and joined service on 05.06.1995. He worked as Sub-Registrar, SRO’s Office, Jangareddygudem, during the period from 27.06.2011 to 30.09.2014 and later he was transferred and promoted as District Registrar, vide G.O.Ms.No.211, dated 12.05.2006 and was working as such.

4. The 1st respondent-State of Andhra Pradesh initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, vide G.O.Rt.No.757, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 25.07.2017, on the only charge that the petitioner admitted certain documents for registration relating to the properties mentioned in the prohibited list as per the records and kept pending without mentioning reasons in the Minute Book and without informing the superior officers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a common enquiry was ordered against the petitioner and other two persons, i.e., petitioner’s predecessor and successor in office.

5. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply / written statement of defence on 12.07.2018, inter alia, denying in the statement of imputations of misconduct. It was stated that the Anti Corruption Bureau (in short “A.C.B”) had conducted surprise check proceedings on the Office of Sub-Registrar, Jangareddygudem on 08.04.2015 and seized 9 pending documents which were long pending and admitted by Sri M. Jeevan Babu and Sri D. Jaya Raju, the petitioner’s predecessors and successors respectively. The surprise check was conducted by A.C.B long after petitioner’s transfer. Under Section 22A of the Registration Act, 1908, the District Collector was required to publish the list of prohibited properties in gazette notification, which notification was issued only after the petitioner’s transfer from Sub-Registrar’s Office, Jangareddygudem. In the absence of notification, documents were kept pending as varying information was provided by the Tahsildars. The factum of pendency of documents was recorded in the Minute Book and the concerned District Registrar was also informed by way of submission of periodical reports. The time limit prescribed in Circular Memo dated 31.05.2010 is not applicable. In the reply, the petitioner further submitted that during his tenure, out of 23,340 documents, 577 were kept pending, out of which 570 were released and 7 were kept pending and those documents could not be released contrary to the rules. Giving detailed reply to each specific document and in view of the reply, the petitioner requeste