Shaik Zeelani Basha, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased Honble Court may be pleased to set aside the orders dated 31-07- 2025 passed in W.P.No.19895 of 2025, and direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No. 796 Revenue (Vigilance-1) Dept dated 13-11-2024 within a period of three months failing which the proceedings stands quashed and pass such

¶12

Between:

¶13

SHAIK ZEELANI BASHA,, S/O LATE S. MURAD SHAVALI, AGE 61 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, M.L. SUBDIVISION, PATHIKONDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, R/O D.NO. 86/3666-A-4, DOCTORS COLONY, REVENUE WARD.NO. 86, B CAMP, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT

¶14

...APPELLANT

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES CUM IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF ADMN, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (IRRIGATION), HO.NO. 27-20-44, JALASOUDHA BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, MUSEUM ROAD, VEKATESWARA RAO STREET, GOVENORPETA, VIJAYAWADA-520002, NTR DISTRICT.

¶18

2

¶19

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY (LANDS, R AND S) REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

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 dispense with the filing of Certified Copy of the order passed in W.P.No.19895 of 2025, dated 31-07-25 and pass such

¶23

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶24

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 vide G.O.Rt.No.796 Revenue (Vigilance-1) Dept dated 13-112024 (for the incident pertaining to the year 2013) with in a period of 3 months, failing which the proceedings stands quashed and pass such

¶25

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶26

1.CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶29

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶33

&

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶35

WRIT APPEAL No.1072 of 2025

¶36

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

¶37

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order,

¶38

dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.19895 of 2025.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶40

The facts leading to filing of this Appeal are herein under:-

¶41

W.P.No.19895 of 2025 is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.796 (Revenue Vigilance-1 Department, dated 13.11.2024) for the incident pertaining to the year 2013 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of existing specific instructions of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD Department, dated 12.09.2022. The said Writ Petition was disposed of, directing Respondent No.1 to appoint an Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer as required under APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 forthwith and shall ensure that the enquiry shall be concluded within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is also made clear in the said order that in the event if the enquiry is

¶42

4

¶43

not concluded within time specified, the Disciplinary Authority, as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be answerable for the delay. Aggrieved by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court granting six (06) months time to the respondents to conclude enquiry, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

¶44

During the course of hearing of the appeal, it came to the notice of this Court through the submission of the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that till date the Enquiry Officer or the Presenting Officer are not appointed as per the directions of this Court, dated 31.07.2025. The learned Government Pleader would submit that as and when this Court directed the 1^st respondent to appoint the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer forthwith, on 22.09.2025 the 2^nd respondent had addressed a letter to the 1^st respondent to appoint the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. But, the 1^st respondent has not complied the same. The action of the 1^st respondent in not appointing the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer till date is not justified and it is in violation of the directions issued by this Court. The 2^nd respondent has also addressed a letter to the 1^st respondent on 22.09.2025 i.e, nearly after two (02) months from the date of order of this Court, which is also not justifiable.

¶45

Admittedly, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the 1^st respondent to conclude the enquiry within a period of Six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Already two (02) months time was expired. In G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department

¶46

5

¶47

dated 12.09.2022, the Government issued clear instructions to all the concerned to conclude the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the Government servant within a period of three (03) months in all simple cases and in complicated cases, the enquiry has to be completed within five (5) to six (6) months. It appears that the respondents has not strictly followed the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022.

¶48

In the present case, admittedly, the charge memo was issued to the appellant for the incident pertaining to the year 2013. It is also an admitted fact that now the appellant is 61 years old and he is at the stage of attaining superannuation. At this juncture, the respondents ought to have allow the appellant to discharge his remaining service with peace rather than placing sword over his head like this by initiating disciplinary proceedings on the verge of his retirement.

¶49

Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, in our

¶50

considered opinion it is appropriate and desirable to revise the time fixed by the learned Single Judge of this Court to meet the interest of justice.

¶51

Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of with the following

¶52

directions:-

¶53

1. The Order, dated 31.07.2025 in W.P.No.19895 of 2025 is modified to the extent that the respondents shall conclude the

¶54

6

¶55

enquiry initiated against the petitioner/appellant within a period of

¶56

two (02) months from today.

¶57

1. In any event, if the enquiry is not concluded within the time stipulated above, the charges leveled against the petitioner/appellant shall stands quashed.

¶58

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents shall inform this order to the respondents forthwith.

¶59