APHC010007532026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3208]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 601/2026 Between:

K Ravi Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. BALAJI MEDAMALLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 601 OF 2026 ORDER:-

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the Respondents in concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.422, dated

12.07.2021 as illegal and arbitrary.

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

The Petitioner has been working as Tahsildar, APSDMA, Kunchanapalli. While so, in the year 2018, the District Collector issued a Charge Memorandum alleging slackness in supervision in preventing illegal mining. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.422 Revenue (Vigilance.I) Department, dated

12.07.2021 and initiated departmental proceedings.

3. The grievance of the Petitioner in filing the Writ Petition is that though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner in the year 2021 pertaining to the issues concerning 2017 and 2018, there has been no progress in the enquiry. On account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the future prospects of the Petitioner will be affected.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022, submits that the Government had framed comprehensive guidelines fixing definite time frame for expediting the process of disciplinary cases in supersession of the previous guidelines. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in simple cases, the enquiry should be completed within three months and in complicated cases, the enquiry should be completed within five to six months and seeks for expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and to quash the disciplinary enquiry in default. The counsel relied on similar orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.11776 and 11779 of 2021, W.P.No.17380 of 2021, W.P.No.17430 of 2021, W.P.No.17617 of 2021, W.P.No.5887 of 2025 etc.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that due to certain administrative issues, there is delay, however, submitted that the enquiry would be completed as expeditiously as possible as mandated under the G.O.Ms.No.91 relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

6. Having heard the learned counsel and taking note of the submissions made by the Assistant Government Pleader and the orders of this Court with reference to similarly placed employees, this Court is of the opinion that the Government had issued the comprehensive guidelines for conclusion of departmental proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.91General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 and Clause 5 (ix) would be relevant for disposal of this case which reads as under: ‘ix. Government direct 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. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the inquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minister.’

7. Considering the fact that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner have been pending since 2021 pertaining to the issues concerning 2017 and 2018, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The Respondent Authorities shall conclude the enquiry against the Petitioner with