The single judge order commanding the authorities to complete the disciplinary enquiry within a specified period was upheld. The writ appeal was dismissed as there were no good grounds to interfere, noting the respondents failed to complete the proceedings despite prior directions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.522 of 2021
(Through video conferencing)
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District and others
… Appellants
Versus
A.Nageswar Rao, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged 55, Occ: Government Service, R/o. Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
… Respondent Counsel for the Appellants : G.P. for Social Welfare
Counsel for respondent : Mr. Ravula Nagarjuna
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Dt: 08.09.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. T.N.M.Ranga Rao, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Ravula Nagarjuna, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 08.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18656 of 2020. It would be appropriate to quote the order in its entirety and the same reads as under:
“The petitioner while working as Executive Director in the District Backward Classes Welfare Financial Corporation, Machilipatam, was placed under suspension and subjected to
2
disciplinary enquiry by issuance of G.O.Rt.No.261 Backward Class Welfare (VIG.d) Department, dated 20.09.2019. Initially, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.15075 of 2019, challenging G.O.Rt.No.261. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.09.2019 with a direction to the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subsequently, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of W.P.No.2392 of 2020, which was disposed of by an order dated 02.03.2020 directing to the respondent to complete the proceedings within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Despite these two orders of this Court, the said enquiry has not been completed. At that stage, the petitioner has again approached this Court, complaining against the inaction of the authorities in completing the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.”
3
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Ivd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition due to inaction in conducting a disciplinary enquiry.
Whether the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent on 09.09.2021 (ordinance date) were to be deemed quashed by virtue of not completing the proceedings within the stipulated time.
Whether any good ground exists to interfere with the impugned order in appeal against suspected delay and inaction.
State of Andhra Pradesh
A.Nageswar Rao
Arup Kumar Goswami
Ninala Jayasurya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
