Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/5463/2026 of B GOPALA RAO Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 25 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 5463/2026 Between: 1. B GOPALA RAO, S/O APPALA SWAMY, AGED 49 YEARS, ASSISTANT
APHC010091892026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 5463/2026
Between:
1. B GOPALA RAO, S/O APPALA SWAMY, AGED 49 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R AND B), R AND B SECTION, HIRAMANDALAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, R/O D.NO. 3-1-8, GARA
STREET, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
TRANSPORT,
ROADS
AND
BUILDINGS
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI - 522237
2. THE
ENGINEERINCHIEF
R
AND
B
ADMINISTRATION,
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA
DISTRICT. - 520001
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532001
4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. - 532001
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.36 dated 23.01.2016 and Memo No.TRB01-211912018-VIG(R and B), dated 11.11.2023 issued by the 1St respondent Government as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and consequently set aside the Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.36 dated 23.01.2016
and Disagreement Memo Dt.11.11.2023 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 pursuant to the Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.36
dated 23.01.2016 issued by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of this writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
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 for the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.36 dated 23.01.2016 and Memo No.TRB01-211912018-VIG(R and B), dated 11.11.2023 issued by the 1St respondent Government as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and consequently set aside the Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.36 dated 23.01.2016 and Disagreement Memo Dt.11.11.2023 and pass…”
2. The facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Roads and Buildings Department in the year 2007. While so, the Vigilance and Enforcement Department conducted an inspection in the month of December, 2013 and issued report on 27.06.2015, making certain technical observations. The said observations were made on the basis of single point testing without adopting standard scientific testing methods, without verifying relevant departmental records and without considering the completion certificate and quality control report. Based on the said report, after four months on 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.36, dated 23.01.2016 for the allegations relating to the year 2011- 2012. The Petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation on 27.05.2016. The Inquiring Authority conducted inquiry and submitted a report dated 07.03.2022 stating that the charge against the Petitioner was held as “not convincing”. 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 17.01.2024, but even after lapse of two years, the Respondents did not take steps to conclude the proceedings. Hence, the instant Writ Petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite long lapse of several years, the Respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings.
5. Considering the submissions made, this Court opined that even after lapse of several years, the Respondents did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings is quite 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:-
“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 Minister.”
6. Whereas in the instant case, it is very clear that even after four (04) years of final report, the Respondents did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings. In that view, this Court, without touching the merits of the case, considering the submissions made, inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition.
7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 26.02.2026 M K K
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.5463 of 2026
Dated: 26.02.2026
M K K