D Sri Rama Chandra Murthy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D SRI RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY, S/O. D. VENKATA PAPARAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PROHIBITION EXCISE, O/O. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION EXCISE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, M THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH,GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. .

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE, STATE OF A.P., MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT522302.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide Charge Memos T.E.C.No. 553 OF 2013 and T.E.C.No. 568 of 2013 (incident pertaining to the year 2010) on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary

¶17

2

¶18

Proceedings, Hyderabad against the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No. 91 General Administration (SER.C) department dated 12.09.2022 and contrary to the orders of this Honble Court apart from violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceedings in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No. 91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 failing which the above disciplinary proceedings stand quashed automatically in terms of the orders in W.P.No. 5097 of 2026 and to pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

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 direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide Charge Memos T.E.C.No. 553 OF 2013 and T.E.C.No. 568 of 2013 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Hyderabad within a period of 3 months and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.T S N SUDHAKAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶28

of India for the following relief/s:-

¶29

“… 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 disciplinary proceedings vide TEC No.553 of 2013 and TEC No.568 of 2013 for the incident took place in the year 2010 as illegal arbitrary and pass such other order or orders.…”

¶30

3

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.

¶32

The petitioner while working as Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, ES Task Force, Ongole, Prakasam District two charge memos were issued to the petitioner on the allegation of corruptions. After initiation of aforesaid proceedings, there is no progress in the matter. However, so far, the inquiry is not completed and the same is pending. Though the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in the 2013, so far respondents have not concluded the same. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to delay in conclusion of the proceedings vitiates the disciplinary proceedings and on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was put to mental agony and hardship.

¶34

Considering the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have not complied the instructions issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 and not completed the charges which are framed against the petitioner and not concluded. In fact, in the above said G.O., the Government has categorically issued instructions to all the Principal Secretaries to complete the enquiry within three months with regard to simple cases and as far as in complicated cases, enquiry be completed within 5 to 6 months. But in the instant case,

¶35

4

¶36

the respondents could not be able to conclude the proceedings even after lapse of fifteen years. Learned counsel further brought to the notice of the Court that in the identical circumstances, this Court has passed catena of judgments directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner without reference to the charge memos issued which are not concluded as per G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.9.2022.

¶37

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings vide TEC No.553 of 2013 and TEC No.568 of 2013 for the incident took place in the year 2010, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the disciplinary proceedings stand quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38