1. Disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2011 for corruption — Not concluded despite time-bound G.O. — Writ for mandamus. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17133
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D Ramesh, J
M Adhusudhana Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 7764/2026
Important Points
Government employees have a right to the expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings; abnormal and unexplained delays cause undue mental agony and violate principles of fair administration, justifying judicial directions for time-bound completion.
Subject
Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay in Conclusion - Employees have a right to have disciplinary proceedings concluded expeditiously. Protracted inquiries cause mental agony and monetary loss, and if delay is unexplained and abnormal, it may vitiate the proceedings. (Para 7, 8)
(B) Administrative Guidelines - Time-limits for Inquiries - G.O.Ms.No.679 fixes specific time-limits (three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases) for the completion of departmental inquiries to avoid imminent threat to employees. (Para 4, 6, 10)
(C) Judicial Intervention - Mandamus - When proceedings relating to incidents from 2011 remain pending despite transfer of files between authorities, the Court may direct completion within a fixed timeframe, failing which the charges may be quashed. (Para 11, 12)
Issues: Whether the delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2011 justifies a direction for time-bound completion or quashing of the charge memos.
(B) Administrative Guidelines - Time-limits for Inquiries - G.O.Ms.No.679 fixes specific time-limits (three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases) for the completion of departmental inquiries to avoid imminent threat to employees. (Para 4, 6, 10)
(C) Judicial Intervention - Mandamus - When proceedings relating to incidents from 2011 remain pending despite transfer of files between authorities, the Court may direct completion within a fixed timeframe, failing which the charges may be quashed. (Para 11, 12)
Issues: Whether the delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings initiated in 2011 justifies a direction for time-bound completion or quashing of the charge memos.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
-
practice and procedure
-
government orders
- g.o. prescribing time limits (Para 6)
-
government orders
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T S N Sudhakar
For the Respondents: GP For Services I
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T S N Sudhakar
For the Respondents: GP For Services I
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: delay in concluding inquiry violates G.O. time limits and constitutional rights. Respondents: proceedings pending post-abolition of Tribunal. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. Delay in disciplinary proceedings is abnormal and unexplained; employees need expeditious conclusion to avoid mental agony. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 )
4. If disciplinary proceedings are not completed within the prescribed time limit, the court can quash charge memos. (Para 12 )
5. Directed COI to conclude inquiries within six months; failing which charge memos stand quashed. (Para 12 , 13 )
6. Can disciplinary proceedings be quashed for delay?
Yes, if the delay is abnormal, unexplained, and violates prescribed time limits, the court may quash charge memos. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12 )
7. What is the time limit for completing disciplinary proceedings?
As per G.O.Ms.No.679, three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases. (Para 6 )
The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking the following reliefs:-
“...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one 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.119 of 2013 and T.E.C.No.149 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 Sri T.S.N.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Services-I for the respondents.
3. The petitioner while working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, was issued charge memos with respect to incident relating to the year 2011 on the allegations actuated by Corrupt motive and in abuse of official position, received bribes, mamools. After initiation of aforesaid proceedings, there is no progress in the matter. Later, the 1st respondent has G.O.Rt.no.429 dated 02.05.2023 and G.O.Rt.No.384 dated 18.04.2023, to conduct
4
2026:APHC:170D70R,J W.P.NO.7764 OF 2026
inquiry. However, so far, the inquiry is not completed and the
same is pending.
4. While so, 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 of the Tribunal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, General Administration (Services–E) Department, dated 18.8.2022 transferring all the cases pending on the file of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to the Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI), to
5
2026:APHC:170D70R,J W.P.NO.7764 OF 2026
continue the pending proceedings and to dispose of it, in
accordance with the statutory rules.
6. Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an employee, are to be completed within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases as per G.O.Ms.No.679, General
Administration (Services–C) Department dated 01.11.2008.
7. In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan , (1998) 4 SCC 154 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:
“The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurre
