K. Yesudasu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K. YESUDASU,, S/O LATE CHINNA RAO, AGED 63 YEARS, RETIRED AS P AND E SUPERINTENDENT AT SRIKAKULAM, R/O D.NO. S-1 R.K. SADAN SBI COLONY, OPPOSITE JUDGE COURT, DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SCERETARY, REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF PROH AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 3RD FLOOR, IHC CORPORATE BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 522502.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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 isssue 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 disciplinary proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No. 798 dated 31-052013 issued by 1st respondent, for the incident pertaining to the year

¶16

2

¶17

2010-2012, as illegal arbitrary and in violation of existing specific instructions of the Government, for early conclusion, and as well as the judgment of the Honble Apex Court, reported in P.V.MAHADEVAN Vs. M.D. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, and accordingly set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No. 798 dated 31-05-2013 within 3 months, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 679 GA (SER.C) Department, dated 1-11-2008 and G.O.Ms.No. 91 GAD Dated 12-09-2022, failing which the proceedings stands quashed automatically in terms of the similar orders passed in W.P.No. 15121 of 2025 dt 25-06-2025 and Futher direct them to release all retirement benefits like Full pension. Gratuity, Encashment of Earned Leave and Commutation of Pension and pass such

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

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 within 3 months, pending aganist the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No. 798 dated 31-05-2013, which related to Liquor Syndicate, of 2010-2012 and direct them to release all retirement benefits pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶27

of India for the following relief/s:-

¶28

“… to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the

¶29

3

¶30

respondents in not concluding the long pending disciplinary proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.798 dated 31.05.2013 issued by the 1^st respondent, for the incident pertaining to the year 20102012, as illegal arbitrary and pass such other order or orders.…”

¶31

Heard Sri Ch Satya Dev Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.

¶32

The petitioner while working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector, was issued charge memo with respect to incident relating to the period of 2010-2012 on the allegation of imputations of misconduct, misbehavior and gross dereliction of duty on 31.05.2013. After initiation of aforesaid proceedings, there is no progress in the matter. Later, the 1^st respondent has G.O.Rt.No.798, dated 31.05.2013, to conduct inquiry. However, so far, the inquiry is not completed and the same is pending.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2021. 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 completed, the above writ petition is filed.

¶34

4

¶35

Learned Assistant Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, which was constituted under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960 was abolished by Ordinance No.6 of 2022, dated 16.8.2022. The same was published in Part IV–B of the Extraordinary Gazette of Andhra Pradesh. Pursuant to repeal of the Tribunal, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.98, General Administration (Services–E) Department, dated 18.8.2022 transferring all the cases pending on the file of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings to the Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI), to continue the pending proceedings and to dispose of it, in accordance with the statutory rules.

¶36

Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an employee, are to be completed within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases as per G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services–C) Department dated 01.11.2008.

¶37

In State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan¹ , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

¶38

“The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary

¶39

1 (1998) 4 SCC 154

¶40

5

¶41

proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it….”

¶42

In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board² , the Hon’ble

¶43

Apex Court observed as follows :

¶44

“11. …. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.”

¶45

In Secretary, Ministry of Defence vs. Prabhash Chandra

¶46

Mirdha³ , the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that before the charge sheet is quashed, this Court must consider the gravity of the charge

¶47

and all other relevant factors before coming to the said conclusion.

¶48

In view of the above expressions, employees cannot work

¶49

under constant and imminent threat of disciplinary proceedings. If no time schedules are fixed for completion of the disciplinary proceedings, the very purpose of G.O.Ms.No.679 will be frustrated.

¶50

2 (2005) 6 SCC 636

¶51

3 (2012) 11 SCC 565

¶52

6

¶53

In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place around 2010-2012, but there was no progress in the inquiries till abolition of the Tribunal and now the file is transferred to the COI.

¶54

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, the Commissionerate of Inquiries is directed to conclude the inquiries, within a period of six months from today, failing which the charge memo issued to the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.798 dated 31.05.2013 issued by the 1^st respondent, shall stands quashed.

¶55