APHC010121282026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6771/2026 Between:

1. G . MADHUSUDANA RAO,, S/O. G. VENKATESWARLU, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, NOW WORKING AS DISTILLERY OFFICER, M/S SENTINE BIO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. IML UNIT, GANDEPALLI VILLAGE, KANCHIKACHERLA MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

2. T HE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, STATE OF A.P., MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-S-Z-S-S03 ...RESPONDENT(S):

The Court made the following ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide Charge Memos T.E.C.No. 171 of 2013 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No. 91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and contrary to the orders of this Hon'ble Court apart from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No. 91 General Administration (SER.C)

department dated 12.09 2022

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him vide Charge Memo in T.E.C.No.171 of 2013 on the file of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad, which action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, submits that the Government has framed comprehensive guidelines prescribing a definite time frame for expeditious disposal of disciplinary cases, in supersession of the earlier guidelines. It is submitted that, in simple cases, the enquiry is required to be completed within three months and, in complicated cases, within five to six months. The learned counsel seeks a direction for expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and for quashing of the disciplinary enquiry in default. He has also placed reliance on 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 and other similar cases.

5. Learned Government Pleader submits that there has been some delay due to administrative reasons; however, it is submitted that the enquiry would be completed as expeditiously as possible in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, and upon perusal of the material available on record, as well as the orders passed by this Court in respect of similarly situated employees, this Court is of the opinion that the Government has issued comprehensive guidelines for conclusion of departmental proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. Clause 5(ix) thereof is relevant for disposal of the present case, which reads as follows:

“(ix) Government direct that, in all simple cases, the inquiry initiated against a Government servant shall be completed within three months either by departmental officers or the Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the in