G Subhakar Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, AT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -522238

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS, ANDHRA PRADESH, 1ST FLOOR, NIDHI BHAVAN, BEHIND APIIC BUILDING, I T PARK, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522503.

¶16

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DISTRICT TREASURY ACCOUNTS OFFICE, P AND T COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530013.

¶17

ASSISTANT TREASURY OFFICER, SUB- TREASURY OFFICE, SEETHAMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM

¶18

2

¶19

DISTRICT - 530013.

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.M VIDYAVATHI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.5836 of 2026

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents for not considering the representation dated 08.01.2026 submitted by the petitioner for grant of all service benefits by treating the suspension period as on duty, including release of increments, pension, etc., as illegal, arbitrary and violative of A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991.

¶31

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

¶32

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the incident occurred on 15.03.2012 and the petitioner retired from service as Sub-Treasury Officer on 31.07.2020. However, even till date, the respondents have not released the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

¶33

Based on the incident took place in 2012, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 27.06.2018. Though an enquiry has been conducted and completed in 2020, the respondents have not yet concluded the disciplinary proceedings and not

¶34

4

¶35

passed any final orders and not released the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

¶36

Further, the learned counsel placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. According to the said G.O., in simple cases, the enquiry has to be concluded within three months and in complicated cases it has to be completed within six months. However, in the instant case, the charge memo was issued in the year 2018 and the respondents have not concluded and not disposed of the same till date. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶37

Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the respondents have completed the enquiry way back in 2020, so far they have not passed any final orders. Hence, there shall be a direction to the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If they fail to conclude the disciplinary proceedings or pass final orders within the stipulated period, the respondents shall consider and release all pensionary

¶38

5

¶39

benefits to the petitioner within a period of two (2) months thereafter.

¶40