1. Writ for mandamus to conclude long-pending disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2013. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6868
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D Ramesh, J
K. Yesudasu – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 5097/2026
Important Points
Protracted disciplinary proceedings without reasonable explanation cause undue hardship to employees. Courts may direct the conclusion of such inquiries within a fixed timeframe, failing which the proceedings may be quashed to prevent continued mental agony and monetary loss.
Subject
Service Law - Departmental Inquiry
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Unreasonable Delay - Protracted departmental inquiries without explanation cause mental agony and monetary loss to the employee, violating their right to an expeditious conclusion. (Para 7, 8)
(B) Administrative Instructions - Time-limit for Inquiry - G.O.Ms.No.679 mandates completion of inquiries within three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases to prevent employees from working under constant threat. (Para 4, 6, 10)
(C) Writ of Mandamus - Direction for Conclusion - Where proceedings are delayed for over a decade (2010-2012 incident), the court may fix a definitive timeline for completion, failing which the charges are liable to be quashed. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether the long-pending disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2013 can be allowed to continue indefinitely after the petitioner's retirement.
(B) Administrative Instructions - Time-limit for Inquiry - G.O.Ms.No.679 mandates completion of inquiries within three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases to prevent employees from working under constant threat. (Para 4, 6, 10)
(C) Writ of Mandamus - Direction for Conclusion - Where proceedings are delayed for over a decade (2010-2012 incident), the court may fix a definitive timeline for completion, failing which the charges are liable to be quashed. (Para 12)
Issues: Whether the long-pending disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2013 can be allowed to continue indefinitely after the petitioner's retirement.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chilamkurthi Satya Dev Naidu
For the Respondents: GP For Services I
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chilamkurthi Satya Dev Naidu
For the Respondents: GP For Services I
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought completion of inquiry; respondents cited tribunal abolition and transfer of cases. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Delay in disciplinary proceedings causes mental agony; court must balance interests of administration. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
4. Disciplinary proceedings must be concluded within fixed time limits to avoid prejudice from delay. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 )
5. Directed Commissionerate of Inquiries to conclude proceedings within six months; else charge memo quashed. (Para 12 )
6. What is the impact of unexplained delay in disciplinary proceedings?
Unexplained delay vitiates proceedings as prejudice to the employee is writ large; proceedings should be concluded expeditiously. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. What time limits exist for completing disciplinary inquiries?
Simple cases must be completed in three months; complicated cases in six months as per government orders. (Para 6 , 11 )
8. Can disciplinary proceedings be quashed due to delay?
Yes, if no time schedule is fixed and delay is abnormal, proceedings may be quashed to prevent continuing mental agony. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 )
9. What factors must a court consider before quashing a charge sheet for delay?
The court must consider the gravity of the charge and all relevant factors before quashing the charge sheet. (Para 9 )
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending disciplinary proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No. 798 dated 31-05-2013 issued by 1st respondent, for the incident pertaining to the year 2010-2012, as illegal arbitrary and in violation of existing specific instructions of the Government, for early conclusion, and as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, reported in P.V.MAHADEVAN Vs. M.D. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, and accordingly set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No. 798 dated 31-05-2013 within 3 months, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 679 GA (SER.C) Department, dated 1-11-2008 and G.O.Ms.No. 91 GAD dated 12-09-2022, failing which the proceedings stands quashed automatically in terms of the similar orders passed in W.P.No. 15121 of 2025 dt 25-06-2025 and Further direct them to release all retirement benefits like Full pension. Gratuity, Encashment of Earned Leave and Commutation of Pension and pass such
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 3 months, pending against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No. 798 dated 31-05-2013, which related to Liquor Syndicate, of 2010-2012 and direct them to release all retirement benefits pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-
"...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending disciplinary proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.798 dated 31.05.2013 issued by the 1st respondent, for the incident pertaining to the year 2010-2012, as illegal arbitrary and pass such other order or orders..."
2. Heard Sri Ch Satya Dev Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.
3. The petitioner while working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, was issued charge memo with respect to incident relating to the period of 2010-2012 on the allegation of imputations of misconduct, misbehavior and gross dereliction of duty on 31.05.2013. After initiation of aforesaid proceedings, there is no progress in the matter. Later, the 1st respondent has G.O.Rt.No.798, dated 31.05.2013, to conduct inquiry. However, so far, the inquiry is not completed and the same is pending.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2021. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 01.11.2018, fixing time-limit for early completion of departmental inquiries. In the said G.O., instructions were issued for expeditious completion of inquiries viz., three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases. Since the inquiries, pending against the petitioner, are not completed, the above writ petition is filed.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, which was constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 was abolished by Ordinance No.6 of 2022, dated 16.8.2022. The same was published in Part IV-B of the Extraordinary Gazette of Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant to repeal
