Disposed

Y v. v Vara Prasad v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Jul 2024WP/3257/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Deputy Executive Engineer sought directions to conclude a decade-pending disciplinary inquiry initiated by a 2012 charge memo. The court disposed of the writ petition directing the second respondent to conclude the inquiry within two months in accordance with law, without touching the merits.

What did the court decide?

Second respondent directed to conclude the inquiry within two months from receipt of copy of order and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

Y v v Vara Prasad Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3257 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Y. V. V. Vara Prasad, S/o Y. Chakradhara Rao, aged 57 years, working as Deputy Executive Engineer APEWIDC, temporarily working(0/D) Rural Development Department, Tadepalli, r/o Flat No. 409,^{RLGouthamiRiver} Breeze Apartment, Tadepalli, Guntur District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development, Corporation (APEWIDC), rep by its Managing Director^ Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶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 declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending Charge Memo. NO.E1/2712/MD/APEWIDC/2006, dated 22-12-2012 issued by the 2 nd respondent which related to the years 2006, in terms^{ofG.O.Ms.No.679} GA{Ser.C) Department, dated; 1-11-2008, the long pendency causing prejudice to the petitioner in getting his legitimte promotion along with other service benefits, as illegal arbitrary and In violation of existing specific instructions of the Government, and accordingly set aside the same.

¶14

¶15

¶16

consequently direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 GA (SER.C) Department,^dated 1- 11-2008 failing which the same shall stands quashed, on the same analogy of similar orders passed in W.P.No. 14565, 14566, 14567 of 2019, dated 25-9-2019 and WANo.456 of 2021 and Batch Dated 16-9-2021. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to conclude the disciplinary proceedings dated: 22-12-2012 pending against the petitioner, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, GAD Dated: 1-11-2008, by fixing a time limit, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA

¶18

KOTA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES III Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V.CH. NAIDU, SC FOR APEWIDC The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

APHC010055882024

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶23

[3331]

¶24

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 3257/2024

Between:

YVVVara Prasad

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.RAMAL1NGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.VCH NAIDU

¶38

2.GP FOR SERVICES 111

¶39

The Court made the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services III for 1 St respondent and Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned standing counsel for 2 nd respondent.

¶42

--Jk

¶43

¶44

Page 2 of 3

¶45

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that a charge memo was issued to petitioner vide Memo No.E1/2712/MD/APEWIDC/2006 dated 22.12.2012 (Ex P.1) under the provisions of the^{AndhraPradesh} Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation/written statement. He would also submit that so far the enquiry was not concluded and hence, this writ petition is filed.

¶46

Learned standing counsel for 2"^^ respondent would^submitthat except one witness from ACB department, all other witnesses are examined and since the ACB department raised a query, the inquiry could not be completed.

¶47

The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 and the purport^ofsaidG.Ois to expedite departmental enquiries. In fact, time was fixed to complete 1 the inquiry. Clause ix of the G.O. reads thus:

¶48

ix. Government direct that in all simple cases the inquiry initiated against Government Servant shall be completed within three months either by Departmental Officers or Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the inquiry should be completed within five to six months. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the inquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit^anoteon the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minister.

¶49

In the said G.O. it was further directed in Clause xii that -

¶50

xii. The Government further direct that all Vigilance Officers/ Disciplinary Authorities must invariably keep in mind^thedateof superannuation of the Charged Officer, while handling disciplinary cases and complete the disciplinary action well in time. Anyone found to have consciously ignored this^factshould be held accountable for’the delay that may lead to^theeventual dropping of the proceedings.

¶51

/ /

¶52

Page 3 of 3

¶53

Considering the instructions extracted supra, mentioned in the

¶54

aforementioned G.O. and in the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 2"'^ respondent to conclude the inquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law. No costs.

¶55

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shallstand

¶56

closed.

¶57

SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT^ REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECrrON OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶63

The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Education and^Welfare Infrastructure Development, Corporation (APEWIDC), Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶64

One CC to Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri V. Ch. Naidu, SC for APWEIDC[OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Services-lll , High Court of Andhra Pradesh.[OUT] 6. Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:24/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.3257 of 2024

■ .A
t3
o 01 AUG mi* o$pmJf
SA' Current Secison ^ J^
.-...rk 9-Si
f-AT^

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Y v. v Vara Prasad v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y v. v Vara Prasad v The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Ismail Khan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. M. Devadasu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M Madhusudhana Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kondreddi Ramakrihnamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Lokesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pokuru Baby Sarojanamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh