“Direct Impact On Retired Employee’s Right To A Dignified Life Under Article 21”: AP High Court Flags Staggering Pendency Of Disciplinary Cases, Issues Continuing Mandamus To State
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay directed the State’s administrative department to submit a status affidavit every four months, updating the Court on progress in completing disciplinary proceedings within the time limits fixed by government orders, until most of the pending cases as on 15 December 2025 are concluded. The order arose from a petition by a government medical officer challenging prolonged delay in finalising disciplinary action initiated in 2022, contending that the continuing enquiry was not being completed within prescribed timelines. Taking note of the wider pendency of departmental enquiries across departments and its impact on service benefits, the Court kept the matter for further listing and directed communication of its order to concerned authorities.
The writ petition was filed questioning the delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings initiated against a government medical officer through proceedings dated 11.05.2022 under Rule 22 of the A.P. C.S (CCA) Rules, 1991. The petitioner, serving as a Special Grade Civil Surgeon and due to retire in early 2027, had submitted his written statement denying the two articles of charges. He contended that the charges were vague and that the proceedings were not concluded within the time limits prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022.
Earlier, he had approached the Court seeking quashing of the charge memorandum. The Court had directed expeditious completion of the enquiry. As the enquiry remained pending, the present writ petition was filed. During the proceedings, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to place on record details of pending disciplinary cases. An affidavit disclosed that as on 15.12.2025, 5,424 disciplinary enquiries were pending across departments, with reasons cited for administrative delay including transfers, restructuring, data validation issues, and change in disciplinary authorities.
The Court observed, “Be that as it may, 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.”
It further recorded, “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 of the Constitution of India.”
Referring to precedent, the Court quoted, “Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees.”
The Court stated, “It is to be noted that the right of expeditious conclusion is not an exclusive right of the employee, even the department has the same right to ensure that the persons with lack of integrity are appropriately punished in public interest and incentivise honest Government employees.”
On the absence of consequences for delay, it observed, “The right of expeditious conclusion under the G.Os is without a remedy.”
The Court recorded, “This gap in enforcement of right of expeditious conclusion and the delay on account of intentional delay by the delinquent/employee coupled with administrative hurdles… requires this Court… to monitor conclusion of disciplinary cases pending as on date, within reasonable time to ensure sanctity and credibility to the process.”
Explaining the approach adopted, it stated, “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.”
The Court directed, “Respondent No.1 is directed to file an affidavit every (04) months from today updating the Court regarding the progress of the disciplinary proceedings in terms of time limit specified in G.O.Ms.No.679, G.A.D (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91, G.A.D (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 till the majority of the total number of disciplinary proceedings as on 15.12.2025 i.e 5424 are concluded.”
“In view of the requirements of a continuous mandamus and direction given above, list on 19.06.2026. Registry is directed to communicate the order to the parties to the writ petition including Chief Secretary to Government, State of Andhra Pradesh and Respondent No.1-Special Chief Secretary to the Government.”
Case Title: G. Ravi Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another
Case Number: W.P.No.30497 of 2025
Bench: Justice Nyapathy Vijay
