SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19865

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D Ramesh, J
Ch. V. Mahesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 10354/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T S N Sudhakar
For the Respondents: GP For Services I

Employees have a right to the expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings; abnormal and unexplained delays cause mental agony and may justify judicial intervention to set a strict timeline for completion or quash the proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay in Conclusion - Right of an employee to have proceedings concluded expeditiously to avoid unnecessary mental agony and monetary loss, especially when the delay is abnormal and unexplained. (Para 7, 8)

(B) Administrative Guidelines - Time-limit for Inquiries - Adherence to G.O.Ms.No.679 which prescribes a time-limit of three months for simple cases and six months for complicated cases for the completion of departmental inquiries. (Para 4, 6, 10)

(C) Judicial Review - Quashing of Charge Sheet - While abnormal delay is a ground for relief, the court must balance the gravity of the charges and other relevant factors before quashing a charge sheet. (Para 7, 9)

Issues: Whether the long pendency of disciplinary proceedings since 2008-2010 is illegal and whether the court should direct their conclusion within a fixed timeframe.

Table of Content
1. background of the delayed disciplinary proceedings and the specific charge memo issued to the petitioner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. administrative guidelines and statutory changes regarding the time-limit and jurisdiction for departmental inquiries. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. judicial precedents emphasizing the right to expeditious conclusion of inquiries to prevent mental agony. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. application of law to the facts resulting in a direction to conclude the inquiry within six months. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)

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 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.117 of 2013 (incident pertaining to the year 2008-2010) 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 from 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 General 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.117 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:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

“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.117 of 2013 (incident pertaining to the year 2008-2010) 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 from 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 General 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 order or orders ….. ”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I.

3. The petitioner while working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, was issued charge memo with respect to incident relating to the period of 2008-2010 on the allegation of imputations of misconduct, misbehavior and gross dereliction of duty. After initiation of aforesaid proceedings, there is no progress in the matter. Later, the Commissioner of Enquiries appointed Inquiry Authority vide G.O.Rt.No.429 (Vigilance0IV) Department dated 02.05.2023 and Presenting Officer vid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top