SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(AP) 106

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.
G. Ravi Kumar, S/o. Vijaya Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Special Chief Secretary To Government Labour, Factories, Boilers and Insurance Medical Services Department and Another – Respondents
W.P. No.30497 of 2025
Decided On : 11-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri Chilamkurthi
For the Respondents: G.P. for Services-II

The right to an expedient conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is essential to protect employee dignity and uphold public interest.

Headnote:In this case, the Court examined the delay in disciplinary proceedings against a government employee, highlighting the provisions under G.O.Ms.No.679 and G.O.Ms.No.91 regarding time limits for such inquiries. Noting the staggering number of pending cases, the Court underscored the necessity for expedience in these proceedings. The right to expedient conclusion must be balanced with the department's responsibility to uphold integrity. The Court directed ongoing monitoring of cases to ensure compliance with specified timelines.

ORDER :

NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.

The present writ petition is filed questioning the delay in concluding the long pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.165, Labour, Factories, Boilers, and IMS (IMS & VIG) Department, dated 11.05.2022 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as follows:

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon on 12.02.1996 and posted at ESI Dispensary, Eluru. Subsequently, he was promoted as Joint Director on 19.09.2009 and further promoted as Special Grade Civil Surgeon on 03.05.2025 and is due to retire in early 2027. While so, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner vide impugned proceedings dated 11.05.2022, wherein two articles of charges were framed under Rule 22 of the A.P. C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991. The Petitioner submitted his written statement of defense on 26.05.2022, vide Rc.No.1727152/E1/2022 denying the charges. It is also stated in the affidavit that the charges are vague and unspecific and the grievance of the Petitioner is that the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.679, G.A.D (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 specifying time limits for conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, G.O.Ms.No.91, G.A.D (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 was issued reiterating the time frame within which the disciplinary enquiry is to be concluded.

3. The Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.28832 of 2022 to quash the charge memorandum as the charges are vague in nature. This Court, by order dated 25.10.2024, disposed of the writ petition directing the Respondents to conclude the disciplinary enquiry as expeditiously as possible in terms of W.P.No.21762 of 2022. As the enquiry was not being concluded in spite of the time frame fixed, the present writ petition is filed.

4. This Court taking note of the writ petitions being filed for expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary enquiries and the impact the departmental proceedings are having on the career proceeds of the delinquents with regard to promotion, retirement benefits, postings etc., directed the Chief Secretary to file a report regarding the departmental enquiries pending as on date in various departments vide order dated 11.11.2025.

5. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary on 18.12.2025 on behalf of Respondent No.1 explaining the reasons for the delay caused in conclusion of the disciplinary enquiries. It is stated that the main reasons for the delay are (i) change in the list of the employees due to transfers, retirements and district re-structuring etc. (ii) Non-capturing of data related to employees on long leave, under suspension, un-authorized absence, on deputation to Foreign Service etc. (iii) merger/abolition of DDOs/HOOs, (iv) recruitment of new employees, (v) due to promotions, the disciplinary authority is changed i.e. upto the 1st level Gazetted, normally the Head of the Department is the disciplinary authority and for 2nd level and above Gazetted, the Government would be the disciplinary authority. (vi) Non-availability of files at a single place/source to upload the data i.e. files are pending at various levels like HOD/Govt/Vigilance Commission/APPSC/ACB and Courts etc., and (vii) Completion of disciplinary cases in the interregnum period.

6. It is stated that Memo No.FIN01- HROPDPP/(RAPT)/4/2023-2 dated 04.05.2023 was issued by the Finance Department, wherein it is stated the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary actions is causing delay to the employees and pensioners and the Government to obtain accurate information regarding pendency of disciplinary cases against serving, non- serving and retired employees had called for information from Drawing and Disbursing Officers (DDOs) as a first step to enter information in the disciplinary cases data base (DCdB) in the website hosted by the Andhra Pradesh Centre for Financial Systems & Services (APCFSS). The DDOs were obligated to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top