Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/28384/2023 of GAJULAPALLI SURESH Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 17 August 2026
1 APHC010546732023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 28384 OF 2023 Between: 1. GAJULAPALLI SURESH, , S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 36 years,
P a g e | 1
APHC010546732023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI
WRIT PETITION NO: 28384 OF 2023
Between:
1. GAJULAPALLI SURESH, , S/o Satyanarayana, aged about 36 years, Earlier Police Constable, VIII Town Police Station, Presently working as Constable at Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada.
Native
of
Vijayawada.
...Petitioner
AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Guntur Dist.,
2. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Police Head Quarters Building, Manglagiri, Guntur Dist.,
3. The Commissioner of Inquiries, , General Administration Department, Inquiry Authority State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
...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 tomay be pleased to pass orders to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, questioning the in- action of the Respondents in failing to concluding the long pending impugned P a g e | 2
charge memo issued to the Petitioner by the Tribunal Disciplinary Proceedings in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 34/2013, which relates to the year 2011, in terms of G.O. MS. No. 679 dated 1-11-2018 (General Administration(service C)
Department ), as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of specific instructions of the Government and the consistent net of orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Honourable Court in various Writ Petitions and further by applying the analogy laid down in P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 SCC page 636 and the order passed by this Honourable Court in W.P. No. 20872/2018, 1352012019, 1275/2020, 11776/2021, 11779/2021, 15555/2021, 15595/2021, 15831/2021
dated 22-02-2023 and 26839/2023 dated 12-10-2023, accordingly set aside the same, as quashed and also to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: ANIL KUMAR DASARI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
P a g e | 3
W.P.No.28384 of 2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to pass orders to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, questioning the in-action of the Respondents in failing to concluding the long pending impugned charge memo issued to the Petitioner by the Tribunal Disciplinary Proceedings in Tribunal Enquiry Case No. 34/2013, which relates to the year 2011, in terms of G.O. MS. No. 679 dated 1-11-2018 (General Administration(service C) Department), as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of specific instructions of the Government and the orders passed by the Honourable Supreme Court and this Honourable Court in various Writ Petitions and further by applying the analogy laid down in P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, reported in (2005) 6 SCC page 636 and the order passed by this Honourable Court in W.P. No. 20872/2018, 1352012019, 1275/2020, 11776/2021, 11779/2021, 15555/2021, 15595/2021, 15831/2021 dated 22-02-2023 and 26839/2023 dated 12-10-2023, accordingly set aside the same, as quashed…”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, submits that the Government has issued comprehensive guidelines prescribing a definite time frame for expeditious disposal of disciplinary cases, in supersession of the earlier guidelines. It is submitted that, in simple cases, the enquiry is required to be completed within three months and, in complicated cases, within five to six months. Learned counsel, therefore, seeks a direction for expeditious conclusion of the P a g e | 4
disciplinary proceedings and for quashing of the disciplinary enquiry in default. He has also placed reliance on orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.11776, 15555, 15595, 15831 and 11779 of 2021 and other similar cases.
4. Learned Government Pleader submits that there has been some delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings due to administrative reasons; however, the enquiry would be completed as expeditiously as possible in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, and upon perusal of the material available on record, as well as the orders passed by this Court in respect of similarly situated employees, this Court is of the opinion that the enquiry needs to be completed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, as the Government has issued comprehensive guidelines for conclusion of departmental proceedings vide G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. Clause 5(ix) thereof is relevant for disposal of the present case, which reads as follows: “(ix) Government direct that, in all simple cases, the inquiry initiated against a Government servant shall be completed within three months either by departmental officers or the Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the inquiry is completed within five to six months. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of inquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on cases pending beyond the stipulated time to the Chief Secretary to Government and also to the Chief Minister.”
P a g e | 5
6. Considering the same, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to conclude the enquiry against the petitioner within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall co-operate for expeditious completion of the enquiry. In the event of failure to conclude the enquiry within the aforesaid time frame, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner shall stand quashed without further reference to this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________
JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 18.08.2026
Dvs
P a g e | 6
190
W.P.No.28384 of 2023 Dt: 18.08.2026 Dvs