Y KALAVATHI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: CHALLA GUNARANJAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-03-19. Y KALAVATHI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 5887 OF 2025 Between: Y Kalavathi, W/o K. Madhusudana Rao, Aged 65 years, Proh Excise Inspector (Retired), R/o D. No. 50. 11. 2/2 Opp. GVK Plaza, Seethammapeta, Visakhapatnam-530016. ... Petitioner AND Revenue 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Amaravati (Excise) Department, A. P. Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Commissioner of Inquiries, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration (COI-MKS) Department, A. P. Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. of Andhra 4. The Member, Commissionerate of Inquiries, Government A. P.
Pradesh, General Administration (COI-MKS) Department, District. Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur ... Respondents 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the initiated vide respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings T. E. C. No. 352 of 2013, Dt. 30. 08. 2018 and T. E. C. No. 382 of 2013, Dt. 15. 11. 2018 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of instructions issued in G. O. Ms. No. 679, GA (Ser-C) Department, Dt. 01. 11. 2008 and also contrary to the order Dt. 28. 11. 2019 of this Hon’ble Court in W. P. No. 19089 of 2019 vide and 19092 of 2019 and consequently set aside the proceedings T. E. C. No. 352 of 2013, Dt. 30. 08.
2018 and T. E. C. No. 382 of 2013, Dt. 15. 11. 2018. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to stay all further proceedings in connection with the notice Dt. 31. 01. 2024 issued by the 4^'^ respondent, pending disposal of this writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1 The Court made the following order: APHC010107942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3506] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 5887/2025 Between: Y. Kalavathi ... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ... RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.
GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: relief: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following more “ .... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary dated proceedings initiated vide T. E. C. No. 352 of 2013, 30. 08. 2018 and T. E. C. No. 382 of 2013, dated 15. 11. 2018, as 16 and 21 of the illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, issued in Constitution of India, apart from violation of instructions and G. O. Ms. No. 679, G. A. (Ser. C) Department, dated 01. 11. 2008 Honble Court also contrary to the Order, dated 28. 11. 2019 of this in W. P. Nos. 19089 of 2019 and 19092 of 2019 and consequently dated set aside the proceedings vide T. E. C. No. 352 of 2013, 30. 08. 2018 and T. E. C. No. 382 of 2013, dated 15. 11. 2018 and pass ” W. P. No. 5887 of 2025 '7^ 2.
While petitioner is working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector at Visakhapatnam, raids were conducted by ACB on all Prohibition and Excise Officers and others during the months of December, 2011 and January, 2012 in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh resulting in various F. I. Rs. are being registered. Petitioner was also alleged to have been implicated in one such case and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The cases against the petitioner were numbered as Tribunal Enquiry Case Nos. 352 and 382 of 2013 and nearly after five years, charges were framed on 30. 08. 2018 and on 15. 11. 2018 in both cases respectively. Petitioner appeared on 04. 03. 2018 and 10. 01. 2019 for enquiry. Thereafter, nothing has happened. Ultimately, the Tribunal was abolished. Petitioner has approached this Court by filing W. P. Nos. 19089 and 19092 of 2019, seeking expeditious disposal of enquiry. By orders, dated 28. 11.
2019, the respondents were directed to complete enquiry expeditiously within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said orders. However, respondents did not conclude the enquiry and they have by G. O. Rt. No. 546, dated 13. 07. 2022, directed to release pensionary benefits to the petitioner subject to outcome of pending disciplinary proceedings. W. P. No. 5887 of2025 3. Heard Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader filed Memo N0. GADOI-SERVOTDPE/3/2022-SER-E, dated 30. 9. 2022 directing the Secretary, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, AP, Hyderabad to hand-over all the files, records, computers, furniture and also cash available with the Tribunal to the Registrar, COI, 1®' floor. Building No.
5, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, through proper and on 01. 10. 2022. safe transportation including protection from rain, Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in fact the files were transferred to COI. 5. Disciplinary proceedings, initiated against an employee, are to six months in be completed within three months in simple cases and complicated cases as per G. O. Ms. No. 679, General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 01. 11. 2008. In the case on hand, the abuse of official petitioner is facing the charges of corrupt motive, were position and receiving of amount, since 2013 and charges framed in the year 2018. W. RNO. 5887 of 2025 rife Court 6. In State of A. P. v. N.
Radhakishan\ the Hon’ble Apex held as under; take into “The essence of the matter is that the court has to and consideration all the relevant factors and to balance clean and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of should honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay The is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings made against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not these to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when in are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part delay delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the has to has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court what consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained on the face prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large of it.... ” Hon’ble 7. In P. V. Mahadevan v.
MD, T. N. Housing Boards the Apex Court observed as follows: “11 The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a only government employee should, therefore, be avoided not in the interests of the government employee but in public in the interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence is minds of the government employees. At this stage, it the necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to and more enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough of on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter due to fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant more the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much the than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. ” 1 (1998) 4 see 154 2 (2005) 6 see 636 W. P,No. 5887of2025 8. In Secretary, Ministry of Defence v.
Prabhash Chandra Mirdha^, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that before the charge sheet is quashed, this Court must consider the gravity of the charge and all other relevant factors before coming to the said conclusion. 9. In view of the above expressions, employees cannot work 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. 10. In the case on hand, the alleged incident took place around 2011-2012 and the cases were registered as Tribunal Enquiry Case Nos. 352 and 382 of 2013 and charges were framed in the year 2018. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was abolished in the year 2022. There was no progress in the enquiries till abolition of the Tribunal and now the file is transferred to the COI. Though this Court on earlier occasion by orders, dated 28. 11.
2019, directed the respondents to complete enquiry within a period of three months, the same has not been complied with and the matter still lies pending. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above discussion, the Commissionerate of Inquiries is 3 (2012) 11 see 565 W. P. No. 5887 of 2025 of three months directed to conclude the enquiries, within a period the petitioner from today, failing which the charge memos issued to which were vide Tribunal Enquiry Case Nos. 352 and 382 of 2013, dated transferred to the C. O. I. , pursuant to G. O. Ms. No. 98, 18. 08. 2022, shall stand quashed. as to 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order costs. if As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, any, in this case shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU / assistant registrar — //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise) Department, Guntu Pradesh, A. P.
Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, District. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition Excis^ Andhra Pradesh, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Pradesh, 3 The Commissioner of Inquiries, Government of Andhra GenerTAdStration (COI-MKS) Department A. P. Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. of Andhra 4 The Member, Commissionerate of Inquiries^^ Government Pradesh, General Administration (pOI-MKS) Department. District ^ Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur 5. One CC to Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, Advocate [OPUC] Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services -1, High Court of Andhra 7. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT DATED:19/03/2025 ORDER O 5 2 ! MAR ? 0? 5 WP. No. 5887 of 2025 ^ Current Section V. ^SPATCH^ DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
Source: High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.