The court affirmed that disciplinary inquiries against retired employees must be completed within set timelines to ensure timely settlement of pension benefits.

JUDGMENT :

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

This Writ Appeal is filed against the order of a learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2025 in W.P.No.27590 of 2025.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

3. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition for convenience.

4. The facts leading to the filing of present writ appeal are as herein under:-

The writ petitioner who worked as Assistant BC Welfare Officer, retired from service on 31.05.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement, the respondent No.1 initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 20 of the A.P.Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 read with Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and issued Article of Charges vide G.O.Rt.No.165, dated 07.09.2022. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 also initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 20 of the A.P.Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 read with Rule 9 of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 and issued Article of Charges vide G.O.Rt.No.196, dated 14.11.2022. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. At that stage, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition, contending that though disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the year 2022, there has been no progress in the enquiry and no Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed by respondent No.1 till filing of the writ petition. It is the further case of the writ petitioner is that though he retired from service with effect from 31.05.2020, due to pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents did not settle his retirement benefits including pension.

5. The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing both sides is pleased to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:-

(i) “The Respondent No.1 shall appoint an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer as required under APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 forthwith and shall ensure that the enquiry shall be concluded 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, enquiry is not concluded within time specified, the Disciplinary Authority, as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be answerable for the delay.”

6. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

7. Mr. P.Amarender, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 issued comprehensive guidelines for fixing a definite time frame for all the stages involved in a disciplinary case in supersession to the earlier instructions issued from the year 1998 to 2019. In the said guidelines at Para No.5 (ix), the State Government directed 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. In the same guidelines, the State Government clarified that the time schedule prescribed to complete the inquiries against Government employees, shall also apply to the Departmental Proceedings instituted against the retired Government employees. Relying on the said guidelines issued by the Government, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the charges levelled against t