WA/34/2026 of R CHIRANJEEVI CHITTI BABU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 18 January 2026

1. R CHIRANJEEVI CHITTI BABU, S/O. R. VEERABHADRA RAO, AGED 61 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTILLERY OFFICER (ASSISTANT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT), M/S. BRK SPIRITS, DAVULURU, KANKIPADU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT, R/O. DR. NO. 63-6-21/4, DWARAKA NAGAR, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

...APPELLANT AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (EXCISE) DEPARTMENT,

A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PROH AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, 3RD FLOOR, IHC CORPORATE BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 522502.

...RESPONDENT(S): 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 condone the delay of (12 ) days in filing the above W.A in I.A.No. 1 of 2025 in W.P.No. 31558 of 2024, dated 19-09-2025, otherwise the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and hardship and pass s IA NO: 2 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 grant Permission to the petitioner to file additional material papers for proper adjudication of the matter and pass IA NO: 3 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 set aside the orders dated 19-09-2025 passed in I.A.No. 1 of 2025 in W.P.No. 31558 of 2024, whereby the learned single judge has granted an extension of 6 months for confusion, declare that the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide TEC.No.89 of 2013 dated 06-01-2017 and TEC. No. 229 of 2013 dated: 26-07-2017, stand quashed (as the respondents failed to conclude the same within the stipulated period in accordance with order dated 03-01-2025 in W.P.No. 31558 of 2024) and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further action pursuant to the said disciplinary Proceedings and pass Counsel for the Appellant:

1. CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT APPEAL No.34 of 2026 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand)

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A.No.01 of 2025 in W.P.No.31558 of 2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The facts leading to filing of this Appeal are herein under:- W.P.No.31558 of 2024 is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending Disciplinary Proceedings issued vide TEC.Nos.89 and 229 of 2013 Dated 06.01.2017 and 26.07.2017 by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) now referred to Commissioner of Inquiries vide G.O.Rt.Nos.464 and

Revenue (Vigilance-IV) Department, Dated 09.05.2023 and 13.04.2023 by the 1st respondent, for the incident pertaining to the year 2010-2012 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of existing specific instructions of the Government, for early conclusion, and as well as the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in P.V.Mahadevan Vs.

M.D.Tamilnadu Housing Board1. The said Writ Petition was disposed of vide order 03.01.2025, directing the learned Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) to conclude the inquiries, within a period of six (06) months from that today, failing which, the charge memos issued to the petitioner vide Tribunal Enquiry Case No.89 of 2013, dated 06.01.2017 (Ex.P1) and Tribunal Enquiry Case No.229 of 2013, dated 01.08.2017 (Ex.P2), shall stand quashed automatically without reference to any further orders. Thereafter, the respondents has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 in the said Writ Petition seeking to extend the time granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court for a further period of six (6) months for concluding the inquiry. The said I.A., was ordered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order, dated 19.09.2025, granting further six (6) months time from that day to conclude the inquiry initiated against the petitioner/appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant.

4. Admittedly, the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) to conclude the enquiry within a period of Six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Further, the respondents have filed an Interlocutory application seeking to extend the time granted for a further period of Six (6) months and the same was allowed. In G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022, the Government issued clear instructions to all the concerned to conclude the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the 1 (2005) 6 SCC 636

Government servant within a period of three (03) months in all simple cases and in complicated cases, the enquiry has to be completed within five (5) to six (6) months. It appears that the respondents has not strictly followed the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022.

5. In the present case, admittedly, the charge memos were issued to the appellant for the incidents pertaining to the years 2010-12. It is also an admitted fact that now the appellant is 61 years old and he is at the stage of attaining superannuation. At this juncture, the respondents ought to have allow the appellant to discharge his remaining service with peace rather than placing sword over his head like this by initiating disciplinary proceedings on the verge of his retirement.

6. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion it is appropriate and desirable to revise the time fixed by the learned Single Judge of this Court to meet the interest of justice.

7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of with the following directions:-

The Interim Order, dated 19.09.2025 passed in I.A.No.01 of 2025 in W.P.No.31558 of 2024 is modified to the extent that the Commissionerate of Inquiries (COI) shall conclude the enquiry initiated against the petitioner/appellant within a period of two (02) months from today.

In any event, if the enquiry is not concluded within the time stipulated above, the charges leveled against the petitioner/appellant shall stands quashed.

8. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents shall inform this order to the respondents forthwith.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Dated: 19.01.2026 TM

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

WRIT APPEAL NO: 34/2026

Dated: 19.01.2026 TM