1. Writ petition against inaction in concluding disciplinary proceedings initiated against a government employee for alleged negligence. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 4799
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Nyapathy Vijay, J
K Ravi Babu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 601/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: BALAJI MEDAMALLI
For the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I
For the Appellants/Petitioners: BALAJI MEDAMALLI
For the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I
Disciplinary proceedings against government employees must be concluded within the timeframes prescribed by government guidelines to prevent prejudice to the employee's career prospects, failing which the employee may be considered for promotion regardless of the pending charge memorandum.
Headnote:(A) Departmental Proceedings - Delay in Conclusion - Prolonged pendency of disciplinary proceedings without progress affects the future prospects of the employee and warrants judicial intervention for expedited disposal. (Para 3)
(B) Administrative Guidelines - Timeframe for Enquiry - Compliance with government guidelines (G.O.Ms.No.91) which prescribe completing simple cases within three months and complicated cases within five to six months is mandatory for the disciplinary authority. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the respondents can be directed to conclude the long-pending disciplinary proceedings within a fixed timeframe.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks expedited completion; respondent cites administrative delay but undertakes to comply with time-bound guidelines. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Government guidelines mandate completion within 3-6 months; delay since 2021 necessitates court intervention. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Disciplinary inquiries must conclude within timeframes prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.91; delay warrants remedial direction. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Respondents directed to conclude inquiry within six months; promotion to be considered if time limit breached. (Para 7 )
6. What is the prescribed time limit for completing disciplinary inquiries under G.O.Ms.No.91?
Simple cases must be completed within three months; complicated cases within five to six months. (Para 6 )
7. What remedy is available if the disciplinary authority fails to conclude the inquiry within the prescribed time?
The employee's case for promotion may be considered without reference to the pending charge memorandum. (Para 7 )
8. Who is held accountable for delays in concluding disciplinary proceedings beyond the prescribed time?
The disciplinary authority, presenting officer, and inquiry officer are held accountable. (Para 7 )
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, Kunchinapalli. 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.91 General 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 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, the Respondent Authorities are unable to complete the Enquiry within the time prescribed, the Respondents shall consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion without reference to the Charge Memorandum.
iv) The Disciplinary Authority,
