APHC010655952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 34052/2025 Between:

D Vara Prasada Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. Ms. K. Anuradha, Asst. GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 34052 OF 2025 ORDER:-

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the Respondents in concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner vide Proceedings R.C.No.492/OP.I/2016-1, dated 11.04.2023 as illegal and arbitrary.

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

The Petitioner is a retired Principal in Government College, Addanki, Ongole, Prakasam (new Bapatla) District. A Charge Memo was issued on the Petitioner vide Proceedings R.C.No.492/OP.I/2016-1, dated 11.04.2023, making certain allegations. The Petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations.

3. The grievance of the Petitioner in filing the Writ Petition is that though the Charge Memorandum was issued in the year 2023 with regard to the issue pertains to the year 2017, there has been no progress in the enquiry. On account of pendency of the Disciplinary Proceedings, the retirement benefits were not released to the Petitioner.

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.

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, 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 that the Charge framed against the Petitioner pertains to the year 2017 and taking note of the retirement of the Petitioner, 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 finish the Enquiry within the time prescribed, they shall release the retirement benefits due to the Petitioner within two months thereafter