Protracted disciplinary proceedings cause undue mental agony to employees; therefore, such inquiries must be concluded within a reasonable time frame as per administrative guidelines, failing which they may be quashed to protect the employee's rights.

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, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide Charge Memo T.E.C.No. 135 of 2013 (incident pertaining to the year 2008-2011) on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad against the petitioner 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 Honble Court apart frcim violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No. 91 Genereil Administration(SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 failing which the above disciplinary proceedings stand quashed automatically in terms of the orders in W.P.No. 5097 of 2026 and to 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 initiated against the petitioner vide Charge Memo T.E.C.No. 135 of 2013 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad within a period of 3 months and pass such

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. T S N SUDHAKAR

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 declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide Charge Memo T E C No 135 of 2013 incident pertaining to the year 20082011 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings Hyderabad against the petitioner 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 Honble Court apart frcim violation of Article 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings in pursuance of G O Ms No 91 Genereil AdministrationSER C Department dated 12 09 2022 failing which the above disciplinary proceedings stand quashed automatically in terms of the orders in W P No 5097 of 2026 and to pass such.…”

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

3. The petitioner while working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, was issued charge memo with respect to incident relating to the period of 2008-2011 on the allegation of imputations of misconduct, misbehavior and gross dereliction of duty on 15.09.2017. After initiation of aforesaid proceedings, there is no progress in the matter. Later, the 1st respondent has G.O.Rt.No.384, dated 18.04.2023, 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