R Ganapathi Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

R GANAPATHI RAO, S/O LATE R.V.NARASIMHAM, AGED 60 YEARS, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R AND B), AMADALAVALASA SUB DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, R/O MIG-135, APHB COLONY, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRAHSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, -SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. - 522238

¶14

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF R AND B ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. - 520001

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532001

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. - 532001

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more

¶19

2

¶20

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings even after the inquiry report dated 07.03.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and consequently set aside the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.33 dated 23.01.2016 and Memo dated 11.11.2023 and pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 pleased to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.33 dated 23.01 .2016 and Memo dated 11.11.2023, including all consequential actions, and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings even after the inquiry report dated 07.03.2022, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶30

The facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as follows:-

¶31

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Roads and Buildings Department in the year 1993 and he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 2013. While so, the Vigilance and Enforcement Department conducted an inspection and making certain technical

¶32

3

¶33

observations with regard to thickness of the crust in C.C Road was not on par with the sanctioned specifications. Based on the report dated 03.10.2015, the Respondent No.1 initiated common disciplinary proceedings on 10 officers involved in those works. Among them, six charged officers were retired; two charged officers were expired and four charged officers were holding the office. The Articles of charges were dropped on the officers, who had expired, initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the remaining charged officers. Pursuant to the common disciplinary proceedings, Articles of Charges were framed against the Petitioner after three months vide G.O.Rt.No.33, dated 23.01.2016 for the allegations relating to the year 2011- 2012. The Petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation on 24.06.2016. The Inquiring Authority conducted inquiry and submitted a report dated 07.03.2022 stating that the charge against the Petitioner was held as “not proved”. Despite categorical findings, the Disciplinary Authority issued a disagreement note vide Memo dated 11.11.2023 based on a report and opinion of the Chief Technical Engineer. The Petitioner had submitted an explanation on 04.03.2024, but even after lapse of two years, the Respondents did not take steps to conclude the proceedings. Hence, the instant Writ Petition.

¶34

Heard Mr. M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II for the Respondents.

¶35

4

¶36

During hearing, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the incident was happened in the year 2013 and the completion of the work in the year 2012; Report of the Technical Committee in the year 2013; Charges were framed in the year 2016; appointing Inquiry Officer in the year 2020 and filed Inquiry Report in the year 2022. Despite long lapse of several years, the Respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings, though the Petitioner was retired from service. By virtue of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the Respondents did not release the retirement and other benefits to the Petitioner.

¶37

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services-II for the Respondents, on instructions submitted by the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), Administration, would contend that after examination of disagreement, vide Endorsement, dated 0.01.2024, the Government has observed some lapses and communicated the same, vide Memo, dated 12.09.2025 and requested the Engineer-in Chief (R&B) Administration to examine and furnish his remarks to the Government along with the specific recommendations. After submitting remarks, the Government would take appropriate action in the matter.

¶38

On perusal of the written instructions, it is found that there is no mention

¶39

about the reason for causing delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Considering the submissions made, this Court opined that even after lapse of a decade, the Respondents did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings is quite

¶40

5

¶41

contrary to the instructions in Clause 5(ix) issued vide G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, which reads as follows:-

¶42

“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 a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minster.”

¶43

Whereas in the instant case, it is very clear that even after lapse of four (04) years of final report, the Respondents did not choose to conclude the disciplinary proceedings. In that view this Court without touching the merits of the case, inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the Respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶44