Protracted disciplinary proceedings without reasonable explanation cause undue mental agony to employees and should be concluded expeditiously; failure to adhere to prescribed time-limits may lead to the quashing of charges.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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. 566 of 2013 (incident pertaining to the year 2011-2012) 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. 566 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 seeking 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.566 of 2013 (incident pertaining to the year 2011-2012) 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 Hon’ble 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…”

Heard Sri T.S.N. Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner while working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, was issued charge memo with respect to incident relating to the period of 20-2012, alleging that she had accepted monthly mamools, amounting to misconduct, misbehavior and gross dereliction of duty. After initiation of aforesaid proceedings, there is no progress in the matter. Later the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.798, dated 31.05.2013, to conduct enquiry. However, so far, the inquiry is not completed and the same is pending.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 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 compl