Prolonged delay in disciplinary proceedings can lead to quashing charges, as it causes undue mental stress, aligning with judicial precedents.

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri Narayan Reddy, learned Senior Designated Counsel, appearing for Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel on record appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending departmental proceedings initiated by charge memo, vide G.O.Rt.No.722 Revenue (Vigilance-V) Department dated 25.05.2013 within the time limits of six (6) months as prescribed by way of an Order, dated 07.02.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.20695 of 2022, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently quash the departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner and further direct the respondents to release full pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% and pass such other or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Excise Inspector on 17.04.1989 and promoted as Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise during the year 2002, 2008 and 2011 respectively. He retired from service on 31.08.2016 on attaining the age of superannuation. While he was working as Prohibition and Excise Superintendent at Medchal, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.722 Revenue (Vigilance-V) Department dated 25.05.2013 alleging that he has failed to supervise the work of his subordinates during the excise period 2010-12. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 09.07.2013 requesting relevant documents, but only few documents were provided on 16.04.2016, and the files relating to successful bidders, seized by the DSP, ACB on 06.03.2012, were not furnished. Despite this, the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 04.05.2016.

4. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.233 dated 16.10.2017 for initiating common disciplinary proceedings. Further, under G.O.Ms.No.626 dated 16.10.2017, Inquiry Officer was appointed and under G.O.Ms.No.626 on the same date, Presenting Officer was appointed. Due to delay in concluding the proceedings initiated against him, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20695 of 2022 challenging the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending departmental proceedings against him. By order dated 07.02.2023, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.4 therein to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months from the date of the order. Thereafter, despite multiple representations submitted by the petitioner, the authorities have not taken any action as on date.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, he is being deprived of many benefits including the retirement benefits and the same is causing hardship to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

6. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contended that despite specific directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.20695 of 2022, the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluded till as on date. The delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.722 Revenue