"Impacts Right To Dignified Life": AP High Court Flags Staggering Pendency Of Disciplinary Cases, Issues Continuing Mandamus To State

In this regard, Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed,

“… the number of pendency of disciplinary cases is staggering and such a pendency has a huge judicial impact on this Court on account of writ petitions seeking reliefs for promotion without reference to charge memo, restoration of seniority, retrospective promotions, quashing of disciplinary enquiry for delay, retirement benefits, consequential contempt cases etc. Apart from the judicial impact, the pendency of disciplinary proceedings causes mental agony on the employees on account of delayed conclusion of the disciplinary enquiries, majority of retirement benefits being subject to the outcome of disciplinary enquiries, they have direct impact on the right of retired employee to lead a dignified life as guaranteed under Article 21”

The Single-Judge further observed that right of expeditious conclusion is not an exclusive right of the employee, and the department possesses an equal right to ensure that the persons with lack of integrity are appropriately punished in public interest and honest Government employees are incentivised.

It was further acknowledged that the prevailing gap in enforcement of right of expeditious conclusion, intentional delays prompted by delinquents, coupled with administrative hurdles requires the Court to monitor the conclusion of pending disciplinary cases and infuse the process with sanctity and credibility. Advocating the need for a new approach towards tackling such pendency, it observed,

“The limitations of declaratory orders of the Court and one-shot adjudications is problematic in cases of this nature considering the magnitude of pendency. It is imperative to have a new approach customised to be immune to the limitations of the traditional approach for better fructification of rights and ensure expeditious conclusion of disciplinary enquiries. The model of continuing mandamus facilitates a process of constant judicial nudging and prodding to overcome inaction of lackadaisical administrative set-up or the shrewd employee evading conclusion as the case may be. Instead of the case ending with a singular judgement, the case being kept open gives a follow-up mechanism for effective implementation.”

Accordingly, the Court directed the State to file an affidavit every four months whereby it is required to update the Court regarding the progress of pending disciplinary proceedings (5424 as of December 15, 2025).

The Court was dealing with a writ petition questioning the long-pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner—a Special Grade Civil Surgeon, in 2022, wherein two charges were framed against him.

The petitioner had denied all charges levelled against him and subsequently relied on a— (i) Government Order (GO) of 2008, wherein the State Government had specified time limits for conclusion of disciplinary proceedings to recognise legitimate rights of employees as well as the department to have expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, and (ii) a GO of 2022 which reiterated the time frame within which the disciplinary enquiry is to be concluded, fixing the maximum time limit of three months for simple cases and six months for complicated disciplinary enquiries.

Notably, the petitioner had previously filed a petition in 2022 seeking to quash the charge memorandum, and the High Court in 2024, had accordingly ordered the officials to conclude the disciplinary enquiry as expeditiously as possible. As the same was not concluded despite time-frame being fixed, the petitioner preferred the writ petition.

When the Court had initially demanded a report from the Chief Secretary, a myriad of reasons for delay caused in conclusion of disciplinary enquiries were enlisted, which included, frequent employee changes owing to transfers and retirements, incomplete and non-capturing of employee data, merger and abolition of offices, new recruitments and promotions, change of disciplinary authorities, and non-availability of files in one place.

Additionally, an affidavit was also provided, which explained not only the administrative reasons for the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary cases, but also the fault lines in the administration as well as the orders of the Court quashing disciplinary enquiries for non-conclusion within the time frame specified without knowing the cause of the delay.

In this premise, the Court disposed of the petitioner while keeping the matter under continuing mandamus, and listed it on 19.06.2026 for further monitoring.

Case Number: W.P.NO.30497 of 2025

Case Title: G.Ravi Kumar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order