The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Sri P.Subbarao,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3564 AP

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                      &
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA


                    WRIT APPEAL No.474 of 2021
                     (Taken up through video conferencing)


The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary,
Revenue (Excise), 4th Block, Ground Floor,
Room No.134, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, and another.
                                                             .. Appellants
      versus
P. Subbarao, S/o. late Sri Brahmaiah,
Aged 62 years, Retired Proh. & Excise Superintendent,
Guntur District, R/o. Flat No.302,
Yagati Select, 8th line, Shymala Nagar,
Guntur, State of A.P.
                                                     .. Respondent

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, GP for Additional Advocate General- II

Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, for Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Dt: 16.09.2021)

(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)

Heard Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, learned Government Pleader attached

to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General-II, appearing for

the appellants and Mr. Motupalli Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel

representing Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharla Kota, learned counsel for

the respondent.

                                         2                                   HCJ & NJS, J
                                                                     W.A.No.474 of 2021

2. This writ appeal is preferred against a judgment and order dated

28.11.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.19087 of 2019,

directing the appellants (respondents therein) to complete the enquiry

pending against the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible,

preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a

copy of the order.

3. The writ petitioner had retired as Prohibition & Excise

Superintendent on 31.03.2018. While he was in service, he was issued a

Charge Memo dated 25.05.2013, alleging that he had failed to supervise

the work of his subordinates in respect of issuance of licences and had

allowed operation of large number of A4 wine shops in the name of

benamis of various liquor groups. The said allegations pertain to the

events that took place between the years 2010 and 2012. Aggrieved by

the action of the authorities in not completing the disciplinary

proceedings, the writ petitioner had filed the writ petition, contending

that on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, he was not

being paid full pension and other retirement benefits.

4. Having regard to the fact that the Charge Memo was issued way

back in the year 2013 while the writ petitioner was in service and that

even after retirement of the writ petitioner from service in the year 2018,

steps were not being taken to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, the

learned single Judge had rightly issued direction for completion of the

enquiry as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the time-frame

fixed and we find no good ground to interfere with the same.

                                       3                                 HCJ & NJS, J
                                                                 W.A.No.474 of 2021




5.     Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed.         No costs.    Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                            NINALA JAYASURYA, J


                                                                              IBL