Background Facts

The respondent was working as Inspector of Police, Traffic-II. A charge memo was issued to him for indulging in corrupt practices, illegally collecting money from lorry drivers, misusing official power, harassing traffic personnel, demanding money, collecting huge amounts from oil industries in the guise of printing flexi banners, and owing dues to various business establishments. An Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed.

The respondent failed to attend the oral enquiry on multiple dates despite receiving summons. He filed a written statement of defence but did not participate thereafter. The enquiry could not progress due to his conviction in C.C.No.114 of 2005 and dismissal from service. His criminal appeal was allowed. Later, on remand he was again convicted, due to which he was dismissed.

He filed another criminal appeal which was allowed. Therefore, he was reinstated in service. In the meantime, he attained superannuation. The departmental enquiry could not proceed due to transfers of enquiry officers and his dismissal on two occasions. Later fresh memos were issued again to continue the enquiry.

Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed a petition seeking to declare the proceedings contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679, and illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the proceedings.

Aggrieved by the order of Single Judge, the State filed the writ appeal before Andhra Pradesh High Court.

It was argued by the State that the order was passed without considering the matter in proper perspective. It was submitted that the Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the delay in conducting the disciplinary enquiry was due to various administrative reasons apart from the non-cooperation of the respondent. It was further submitted that as laid down by the Supreme Court in Chairman, LIC of India & Ors. v. A.Masilamani, a disciplinary enquiry cannot be set aside on the ground of delay in conducting the same.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondent that the delay in completion of enquiry proceedings was solely attributable to the authorities. It was submitted that the respondent attained the age of superannuation in 2019 and due to non-completion of the enquiry, he lost promotion opportunities.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the issue had not been properly examined. It was noted that no finding was recorded on whether the delay in completing the enquiry was attributable to the respondent or to the Department. It was further observed that the effect of G.O.Ms. No. 679, which provides for the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within six months, had not been considered. Further, no reasons were discussed for granting the relief. The Single Judge simply allowed the writ petition referring to P.V.Mahadevan's case.

It was observed by the Division Bench that the decision in P.V.Mahadevan's case was with reference to delay in initiation of departmental enquiry. However, it was not applicable to this case because the crime against respondent was registered in 2011 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 2012. There was no delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. However, the delay was in conclusion of the proceedings.

The judgment in case of Chairman, LIC of India & Ors. v. A.Masilamani was relied upon wherein it was held that a charge-sheet or show-cause notice issued in disciplinary proceedings cannot ordinarily be quashed on the ground of delay in their conclusion, and the court must take into consideration all relevant facts including gravity of charges.

Further the case of Depot Manager, APSRTC v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Ors. was relied upon wherein it was held that crime is an act of commission in violation of Law or of omission of public duty. Departmental enquiry is to maintain discipline in the service and efficiency of public service.

It was noted by the Division Bench that the G.O.Ms.No.679 provides for conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within six months, however, it is directory in nature and cannot be treated as mandatory. It was further observed that delay per se was not attributable to Department alone, but conviction orders which led to dismissal of respondent from service and his conduct during enquiry proceedings also contributed to it.

It was held by the Division Bench that allegations against the respondent were grave and cannot be swept under the carpet due to reasons of delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. It was further held that the respondent worked in the Police Department which commands high standards of honesty and integrity. Therefore, it was directed by the Division Bench to complete the disciplinary proceedings within three months, failing which the proceedings shall stand automatically terminated.

With the aforesaid observations, the decision of the Single Judge was quashed by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Appeal filed by the State was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Lambu Ravi Teja

Case No. : WRIT APPEAL No: 1069 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellants : G. Raju, Government Pleader

Counsel for the Respondent : A. K. Kishore Reddy