The High Court · 2025

2. Sri A. Srinivas Fleddy, Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition rnrl Excise (lnquiring A rth c rity), Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS/FIESPONDENTS Petition Unler liection 151 CPC praying that in the circurrstances stated in the affidavit filed in s upport of the petition, the'High Court may be pleased to vacate the interinr orc ers dt 2011212023 passed in W.P.No. 32924 oI 2023, and dismiss the writ potition as devoid of merits. Counsel for the Petiticner : SRI NARAYAN REDDY, SENIOR DESIGNATED FOR M/s BOMMINENI VIVEKAN,ANDA Counsel for the Resprndents : G.P FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.32924 OF 2023 ORDER: . Heard Sri Narayan Reddy, learned Senior Designated Counsel, appearing for Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel on record appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioner a DDroached the Court seekino oraver as under: ".-.to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending departmental proceedings initiated by charge memo, vide G.O.Rt.No.722 Revenue (Vigllance-V) Department dated 25.05.2013 within the time limits of six (6) months as prescribed by way of an Order, dated 07.02.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.20695 of 2022, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently quash the departmental proceedings pending against Lhe petitioner and further direct the respondents to release full pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner along with interest @ 1B7o and 2 pass stc'l may d 3err other or other orders as this Hon'ble Court fit and proper in the interest of justic(1."

3. It is ihe specific case of the petitioner that the )etitioner was appoin.ed as Excise Inspector on 17.04.1989 anC lrromoted as Assistanl Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Pro ribition and Excise Sup€ rint3ndent and Assistant Commissioner of p"ohibition and Excise durng the year 2002,2008 and 2011 r:spectively. He retired r'rorr service on 31.08.2016 on attainin,J the age of superannua:ion While he was working as Prohibition arrd Excise Superintencen: at Medchal, disciplinary proceedinrls were initiated aga nst him by issuing charge rnenro vide G.O.Rt.No,722 Revenue (Vigilance-V) Departnrent dated

25.05.2013 alle ging that he has failed to supervist: the work of his su torc inates during the excise period ,,lO1O-12. The petitiorrer submitted a representation dated t)9 07.2OL3 requesting rele:vant documents, but only few docu nrerlts were provided or 1(,.04.2016, and the files relating tr: srrccessful bidders, seized by the DSP, ACB on 06.03.2012t, rr,ere not furnished, t)esF ite this, the petitioner submitted llis written statement o1 del'ence on 04.05.2016. 3

4. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.233 dated 16,10.20t7 for initiating common disciplinary proceedings. Further, under G.O.Ms.No.626 dated 16.10.2017, Inquiry Officer was appointed and under G.O.Ms.No.626 on the same date, Presenting Officer was appointed. Due to delay in concluding the proceedings initiated against him, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20695 of 2022 challenging the action of the respondents in not concluding the long pending departmental proceedings against him. By order dated 07.02.2023, this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent No.4 therein to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six months from the date of the order. Thereafter, despite multiple representations submitted by the petitioner, the authorities have not taken any action as on date.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, he is being deprived of many benefits including the retirement benefits and the same is causing hardship to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. PERUSED T E RECO RD. DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION: I I i I I 4

6. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of thre petitioner mainty contended that despite specific drire(:tions issued by this Court in W.p.No.2O695 of 2022, the disciplinary proceedings have not been concluderl till as on date. The delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner by charge memo vr-de G.O.Rt.No.722 Revenue (Vigilance-V) is unexptained and Department,, dated 2S.05.2O13, therefore, thr: charge itself needs to be quashecl.

7. Learned Government pteader for prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the respondents on the rcther hand contends that the respondents may be dIrercted to conclude the Cisciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of six (06) months fnom the date of receipt of a copy of the order and if the proceedingls a re not concruded for any reason within the said periorJ oif six (06) months by the responrlents, the responden,ts nray be directed to drop the diisciptinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. CONCLUSIoN I 8 T e d n s o N u 6 36 5 f B d EA x o r I r 2 I v 5 ev n N 6 1 ls ob 0 WA em a at e all edi cide ofi rve as nder:- 6. Mr. Prabhakar also i nvited our attention to the affidavit filed by the appeltant in support of his case. It is stated in para 74 of the affidavit that the respondent with the mala fi e intention issued th rese tch ella nt ev nth a h anc of s ede dw soft e e r 199 whi fl r o the issu ance of ch a e memo and that very reason for issuing charge memo was that the appellant could be detained from promotin g to the post of Chief Engineer of the Housing Board. 11. Under the circumstances, we are oF the opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government ofricia I under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The orotracted disciplina rv en qu irv aqarn taq vern ent molo ee av d n em lo r c R h n e t !s n m d emolovees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffe red enough and more on account of the discipl inary proceedi ngs. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedi ngs would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the di sciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. o m I .J /\ 6 9 The Apgl Court in a catena of its iudoments ei!!S!Cd th Co disci olina r conclud ino the sa m e. hen there is ino rd Inat elavln i) The Court of A.P. Vs' A'Rajdeswar Reddy reported in 2O1O(3) ALD Page 501 (DB) ii) M.!'.B.Jilani Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2OO6 (5) SCC Page 88' iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs' Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570. iv) Se<:retary Forest Department Vs' Ahdr'rr Rasul Chourdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC Page 3O$' v) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs' Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 201i? (11) SCC 56s.

10. The PiY ision Bench of his Court in its iudqment dated 26.r)4,11O13 passed in W.P.No'2826 of 2O13 and the Bsnch of this Court in its iudoment ---da!cd 25.06.201 3 E,assed in W.P.Nos.11924, 10307'-1944-1-aOd 2013, referri nq tod elav in in rnq or Divi sio 488 t concluding_ enoutr v oroceed inos obse ed that delav 7 dice to h h the m also a round for ouas hinq the charoe itself.

11. Takino into consideration he fact as borne n record that t e Charoe Memo had bee issued aoai st the oetitioner tn the vear 2O13 nd the fact that t ere is no Droqress in the disciolinarv roceedinos even as on date in the vear 2025. this Court ooines that since the r2 1 ainst the tions I v had not rrtrrarf as on d:fa ear 2()2E =c rerall end therltrac no concl r lc al n tFrllra dath .l atar flra tition r of the ll elled a arn ithou fin a h e sub e n the 5 the n not be u v further menta I aoonv and sufferino at this lenoth of time. L2. Taktn tnto o nsideration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The iud e 8 t Va o o rt r ferlcd-ls above and again enlisted below:- i) The judgment of the APex Court in P.V.Mahardevan Vs' MD' T'N'Housing Boardl' dated O8.Ott.20'05 reported in (2O05) 6 SCC 636(r'eferred to and e:xtracted above) ii) Thr: judgment of Division Bench of lihiis Court' date,l 26.04.2013 passed in W'P'No'2826 of :I-O13' iii) The iudgment of the Division Bench of this Court,' rlated 25'O6'2O13 passed in W'P'NoI'LL294' LO3tl7, LO44r' & 10488 of 2O13' iv) The Court of A'P' Vs' A'Rajdeswar Reddy reported in 2O1O(3) ALD Page 5O1 (DB) v) M V.B.Jilani Vs' Union of India anrrl Others reported in 2OO6 (5) SCC Page 88' vi) State of Punjab and Others Vs' Charnrrlat Goyal in 1995 (2) SCC 57O' rep,ort€ld vii) Siecretary Forest Department Vs' Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC Page 3l)5' viii) Secretary, Ministry of Defence andi Others Vs' Prabas;h Chandra Mirdha reported in 2Ot2 (11) SCC 561;. 9 The Writ Petition is allowed as Draved for and the Charqe memo vr'de G.O.Rt.No.722 Reve nue (Viqilance-V) DeDartment. dated 25.O5.2013. issued aoainst the Detitioner is a ordinqlv duashed. However. there shall be no order as to costs, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/- P. P MANABHA REDDY UTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER t, Secretariat, State of

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Vig ) Depart Hyderabad. Telangana at HYderabad. Government, Revenue (CT and Proh Excise) 2. The PrinciPal Secretary to e of Telangana at HYderabad. Deoartment, Secretariat, Stat of Telangana, bition, and Excise, 3. Th6 Commissioner of Prohi 4 sii- A. s*ivas Reddy, Deputy commissioner of Prohibition and Excise s. ti,i,liCcl 6cP%t pr1niu,tion-ino Excise, High Court for the state of 6. o-n; ic 6 rvil..'aort'lrurl{dNlvivEKANANDA, Advocate IoPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies (lnquiring Authority), Nalqonda District' Telangana at HYderabad. [OUTI 'Government To SA M- C.C. TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:29lCt4l1r-025 ORDER WP.No.32924 ctf2023 .-: I :,? i:S s OI l!,i 216 1, ,j \. \.... t \.:. i ], ): .l ,// ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COS;TS. \ 6