ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.A1/423/2020 dated 18.11.2020 issued by respondent No.3 as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the panel year 2019-2020, irrespective of pendency of departmental proceedings, and promote him. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Typist on compassionate grounds on 04.05.2006 in the Revenue Unit of Prakasam District, later promoted as Senior Assistant in the month of September 2012 and posted as Mandal Revenue Inspector in the office of Tahsildar, Santanutalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, ever since, he has been working to the utmost satisfaction of one and all. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 vide his proceedings Rc/E4/2198/2010 dated 13-03-2016 submitted a report to respondent No.1 to initiate disciplinary action against several persons, including the petitioner alleging that the petitioner submitted a false report to the Tahsildar, Santanutalapadu recommending for conversion of land in Santanuthalpadu village from agriculture to non agricultural purposes and the matter is pending before respondent No.1, for concluding disciplinary proceedings against several Officials purportedly involved. 3. Respondent No.3 prepared the integrated seniority list of the services of Junior Assistants/Typists joined in Prakasam District Revenue Unit from 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2016 vide Proceedings Rc.A2/152/2006 dated 19.08.2017, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.8. While the matter stood thus, in pursuance of the report submitted by respondent No.3 in the year, 2016, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.260 Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department dated 28.03.2019, ordering as under "in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rules 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991, the disciplinary authority 1. That the disciplinary action against the said Government servants shall be taken in common proceedings; 2. That the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department shall function as disciplinary authority for the purpose of common proceedings and shall competent to impose the penalties specified under Rule 9 of APCS(CC&A) Rules R/w Rule 9 of APRP Rules 1980 and 3. That the disciplinary action against the said Government servants shall be taken in common proceedings; 2. That the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department shall function as disciplinary authority for the purpose of common proceedings and shall competent to impose the penalties specified under Rule 9 of APCS(CC&A) Rules R/w Rule 9 of APRP Rules 1980 and 3. That the procedure prescribed in Rule 20 & 21 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules shall be followed in the said proceedings. 4. Immediately, on the same day, respondent No.1 vide G.O.RT, No.450 (Revenue) (Vigilance.1) Department dated 28.03.2019 issued articles of charge to the petitioner and 8 others and the same were served by respondent No.3 through the District Revenue Officer vide Rc.Al/e-Office No.19037/2019 dated 04.05.2019. Respondent No.1 vide his proceedings G.O.RT No.155 dated 22.01.2020 was pleased to appoint the Joint Collector-III, Prakasam District as Inquiry Officer. Later, respondent No.1 was pleased to appoint the District Revenue Officer, Ongole, as Presenting officer vide G.O.Rt.No.156 dated 22.01.2020 to present the case before the inquiring authority on behalf of the Disciplinary authority in support of the articles of charges framed against the petitioner and others. 5. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 vide his notice Rc.A1/423/2020 dated 13.10.2020 issued provisional eligibility list of Senior Assistants working in Revenue Unit of Prakasam District for the period from 01.09.2019 to 31.08.2020 calling for objections for affecting Adhoc/temporary promotions to the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar, in which the name of the petitioner was not shown. Immediately, he made a representation to respondent No.3 on 16.10.2020 objecting the above provisional seniority list and to include his name in the seniority list of eligible candidates for consideration to the post of Adhoc Deputy Tahsildar. Respondent No.3 without considering his objections in proper perspective, issued order Rc.A1/423/2020 dated 18.11.2020 rejecting the case of the petitioner and prepared the final seniority list. The same is challenged before this Court in the present writ petition. 6. It is contended that non-consideration of the case of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the guidelines issued by respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Respondent No.3 submitted enquiry report to respondent No.1 on 13.03.2016 i.e. after a period of 7 years with specific recommendation for initiation of suitable disciplinary action. 6. It is contended that non-consideration of the case of the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the guidelines issued by respondent No.1 in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Respondent No.3 submitted enquiry report to respondent No.1 on 13.03.2016 i.e. after a period of 7 years with specific recommendation for initiation of suitable disciplinary action. Later, respondent No.1 initiated disciplinary proceeding by framing written articles of charges vide G.O.Rt.No.450 Revenue (Vigilance-1) Department dated 28.03.2019 i.e. with delay of 3 years. Respondent No.1 appointed inquiry officer and presenting officer on 22.01.2020 i.e. after a period of 10 months from the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. 7. Respondent No. 3 erred in concluding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 28.03.2019; two years cut of date of panel year 2019-20 ends by 31.08.2020 and that the case of the petitioner would not come under the purview of relaxation provisions envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.529 GAD (Services-C) Department dated 19.08.2008. 8. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that the time limit of two years for concluding disciplinary proceedings i.e. ACB cases and other cases where FIR booked and G.O.Ms.No.529, based on which the plea of the petitioner for inclusion was rejected, has no application to the case of the petitioner. Therefore, rejection of the representation of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. 9. Respondent No.1 specifically fixed the time frame for finalization of disciplinary cases and it was also reiterated by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad vide reference No.V.S.I(1)/1033/2022 dated 05.09.2002 as follows: 1. Issue of Charge Memo 2. Submission of explanation by the Delinquent officer 10 days 3. Furnishing of remarks on the Explanation of the delinquent officer 15 days 4. Submission of enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer 60 days 5. Submission of explanation by the Delinquent officer to the show cause Show cause notice issued indicating Provisional conclusion/punishment 15 days 6. Passing of final orders 30 days 10. Thus, the total period specified from the date of issuance of charge memo to the date of passing final orders is 130 days. In the case of the petitioner, charge memo was served on him by the respondent No.3 on 04.05.2019 and hence the case of the petitioner should be finalized within 130 days from that date i.e. by 10.09.2019. But, the case of the petitioner was not yet finalized. In the case of the petitioner, charge memo was served on him by the respondent No.3 on 04.05.2019 and hence the case of the petitioner should be finalized within 130 days from that date i.e. by 10.09.2019. But, the case of the petitioner was not yet finalized. Even if, the date of appointment of Inquiry Authority is taken in to consideration, case of the petitioner should be finalized by 31.05.2020 as the inquiry authority was appointed on 22.01.2020. Consequently, the respondents are at fault in completion of inquiry, and for the fault of respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Adhoc/temporary promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C.) Department dated 10.06.1999, but the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and denied the opportunity to be considered for promotion placing his name in the final seniority list and committed grave error. Therefore, the act of the respondents in issuing proceedings Rc.A1/423/2020 dated 18.11.2020 is arbitrary, illegal and liable to be set aside. Consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the panel year 2019-2020 irrespective of pendency of departmental proceedings. 11. Respondents did not file counter, but placed on record written instructions along with Government Orders referred in the written instructions. Respondents admitted issuing proceedings at different stages and non-completion of enquiry while contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.529 GAD (Services-C) dated 19.08.2008 the Government directed to consider the cases of employees for promotion to the next higher categories wherever the charges are held not proved by the Criminal Court and acquitted them, even though an appeal is preferred before the higher Court against such acquittal on par with case of employees where disciplinary cases not concluded even after two years. 12. In the written instructions, respondents elaborated Rule 6 of A.P. State Subordinate Rules, 1996, which is as follows: (a) The panel of approved candidates referred to in sub-rule (a) of rule-5 shall be prepared by the appointing authority or any other authority empowered in this behalf, in consultation with the Departmental Promotion Committee in respect of posts outside the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and Screening Committee in respect of the posts within the purview of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to recommend the names to the Commission. The appointing authority shall make appointments of candidates from such panel/list, in the order in which the candidates in such panel are arranged in their order of preference. (b) The panel of candidates for appointment by transfer to a service or a class of service in any case, where the Commission is not consulted on the suitability of a candidate for such appointment under sub-clause (b) of Clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution of India or for promotion, shall be prepared ordinarily during the months of September every year on the basis of estimated of vacancies sent in terms of sub-rule (d). First September of the year shall be reckoned as the qualifying date to determine the eligibility of a candidate for such appointment, which shall cease to be in force on the afternoon of the 31st December of the succeeding year or till the next panel is prepared whichever is earlier and for the purpose of preparing the said panel, the zone of consideration shall be in the ratio of 1:3. The period from 1st September of the year to the 31st August of the succeeding year shall be reckoned for purpose of determining the number of vacancies during the panel. Provided that if the number of candidates to be included in the panel falls short of the number of vacancies estimated such shortfall shall be made good by considering the claims of the other qualified and eligible candidates, if any, in the seniority list placed immediately below. Provided further that the panel of candidates so prepared shall be reviewed after a period of six months reckoned from the date of approval of the panel, for the purpose of considering the cases of such other persons whose names were not included in the panel prepared earlier for not passing the prescribed tests or for not having special qualifications prescribed under the rules, if they have subsequently passed those tests or acquired the said qualifications and are otherwise found suitable for inclusion in the panel of the year. No such review of list of approved candidates shall, however, be undertaken where no tests or special qualifications are prescribed under the rules as condition precedent for promotion or appointment by transfer: Provided that no panel of candidates need be prepared. 13. No such review of list of approved candidates shall, however, be undertaken where no tests or special qualifications are prescribed under the rules as condition precedent for promotion or appointment by transfer: Provided that no panel of candidates need be prepared. 13. As examined from the objection petition and disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein with reference to time frame fixed vide CCLA's Ref. No.V.S.I(1)/1033/2002 dated 05.09.2002, the evaluation table is submitted hereunder: Date Action Time frame fixed by Government Time elapsed in the case of the petitioner Remarks 10.08.2013 Report Submitted by the individual - - - 13.03.2016 Report submitted by Collector, Prakasam for initiation of disciplinary action - - - 28.03.2019 Article of charges issued No time frame - Served on the individual on 16.05.2019 through Collector, Prakasam Lr. Dt. 04.05.2019 16.05.2019 Explanation submitted by C.O 10 days Within time frame No delay on part of charged officer 22.01.2020 Appointment of Inquiry Authority 15 days 8 months Much delay beyond the time frame fixed by the Government - Submission of Enquiry Report 60 days 9 months Enquiry not yet concluded Much delay beyond the time frame fixed by the Government - Passing final orders since issuance of charge Memo 130 days 1 1 / 2 year Much delay beyond the time frame fixed by the Government Case is at the state of enquiry proceedings only, till to date. 14. Finally, it is contended that neither the inquiry proceedings concluded within the general norm of six (6) months time as stipulated in Govt.Memo.No.23537/Ser.C/99-5, GAD (Ser.c), dated 28.07.1999, under Rule 20 of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 nor the disciplinary proceedings finalized within the time frame as stipulated in CCLA's Ref. No.V.S.I(1)/1033/2002 dated 05.09.2002. As the disciplinary proceedings initiated during the year 2019 i.e. 28.03.2019 and it is within 2 years of time only from the cut-off date of panel year 31.08.2020 and thereby the case of the petitioner do not fall under purview of relaxation provisions envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.529, GAD, dated 19.08.2008, thereby the name of the petitioner was not included in the provisional eligibility list published on 13.10.2020. The appointing authority has examined the objections filed by the petitioner carefully in pursuance of the instructions of the Government issued in G.O.Ms.No.529 G.A (Services.C) Department dated 19.08.2008 and rejected the request of the petitioner as the disciplinary proceedings initiated during the year 2019 i.e. 28.03.2019 and it is within 2 years of time from the cut-off date of panel year 31.08.2020. Therefore, the case of the petitioner would not fall under the purview of relaxation provisions envisaged in said G.O.Ms.No.529, GAD, dated 19.8.2008, requested to dismiss the petition. 15. Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that when the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner are not concluded within the time frame fixed by the Government, his name has to be included in seniority list for promotion to the next cadre. Though the disciplinary proceedings initiated long back, the respondents did not conclude those proceedings and the delay was caused by the respondents. Thereby, the petitioner is entitled for Adhoc promotion fixing seniority by inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the seniority list, but the respondents committed grave error in rejecting the case of the petitioner for consideration to the promotion to the next cadre, requested to set aside the impugned proceedings Rc.A1/423/2020 dated 18.11.2020 while directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on Adhoc basis to the next higher cadre. 16. Learned Government Pleader for Services–I would contend that the objections of the petitioner were considered in proper perspective with reference to G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 19.08.2008, but the case of the petitioner would not fall within the said G.Os referred above, thereby the case of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent by issuing impugned proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for being considered for promotion to the next cadre on Adhoc basis, requested to dismiss the petition. 17. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arose for consideration are: “1.Whether the time fixed in G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER-C) Department dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.529 General Administration (Services – C) Department dated 19.08.2008 starts from the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings or from the date of appointing inquiry officer? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Adhoc promotion to the next cadre despite pendency of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner? POINT Nos.1 and 2: 18. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Adhoc promotion to the next cadre despite pendency of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner? POINT Nos.1 and 2: 18. The entire case is revolving around two Government Orders i.e. G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER-C) Department dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.529 General Administration (Services – C) Department dated 19.08.2008. The relevant portion in G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER-C) Department dated 10.06.1999 is paragraph No.5 and the same is important for deciding the real controversy besides consideration of G.O.Ms.No.529 General Administration (Services – C) Department dated 19.08.2008. The paragraph No.5 of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER-C) Department dated 10.06.1999 is extracted hereunder for better appreciation. “5. Government also order that with immediate effect the following procedure and guidelines, be followed to consider the employees against whom disciplinary cases or criminal prosecution are pending or whose conduct is under investigation, for appointment by promotion or transfer, to next higher categories. 1. The details of employees in the zone of consideration for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committees or Screening Committees: (i) Officers under suspension; (ii) Officers in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; (iii) Officers in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending. 2. Officers who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation can be categorised into the following groups based on the nature of the allegations of charges pending against them or about to be instituted namely: (i) an officer with a clean record, the nature of charges or allegations against whom relate to minor lapses having no bearing on his integrity or efficiency, which even if held proved would not stand in the way of his being promoted; (ii) an officer whose record is such that he would not be promoted, irrespective of the allegations or charges under enquiry, trial or investigation; and (iii) an officer whose record is such that he would have been promoted had he not been facing enquiry, trial or investigation, in respect of charges which, if held proved, would be sufficient to supersede him. 3. 3. The suitability of the officers for inclusion in the panel should be considered on an overall assessment based on the record which should include namely: (i) Adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential reports, the penalties awarded and the bad reputation of the officer as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned; The above cases should be considered as falling under category (ii) of item (B) above. (ii) The officers who do not have any adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report, and who have no penalties awarded against them in the entire duration of the post and not merely in the past five years and whose reputation is vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and Secretary to Government of the Department concerned should be considered as falling under category (iii) of item (B) above. The officers categorized as under item (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.424, GA (Ser.C) Dept., dated 25.05.76 as mentioned above only should be considered for adhoc promotion after completion of two years from the date of the Departmental Promotion committee or Screening committee Meeting in which their cases were considered for the first time.” 19. The said paragraph No.5 deals with guidelines to be followed to consider the employees against whom disciplinary cases or criminal prosecution is pending or whose conduct is under investigation, for appointment by promotion or transfer, to next higher categories. According to clause (1) the details of employees in the zone of consideration for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committees or Screening Committees. According to clause (1) the details of employees in the zone of consideration for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committees or Screening Committees. According to clause (2) officers who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation can be categorised into the following groups based on the nature of the allegations of charges pending against them or about to be instituted namely: (i) an officer with a clean record, the nature of charges or allegations against whom relate to minor lapses having no bearing on his integrity or efficiency, which even if held proved would not stand in the way of his being promoted; (ii) an officer whose record is such that he would not be promoted, irrespective of the allegations or charges under enquiry, trial or investigation; and (iii) an officer whose record is such that he would have been promoted had he not been facing enquiry, trial or investigation, in respect of charges which, if held proved, would be sufficient to supersede him. 20. Whereas, clause (3) specifies that the suitability of the officers for inclusion in the panel should be considered on an overall assessment based on the record which should include namely: (i) Adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential reports, the penalties awarded and the bad reputation of the officer as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned; The above cases should be considered as falling under category (ii) of item (B) above. (ii) The officers who do not have any adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report, and who have no penalties awarded against them in the entire duration of the post and not merely in the past five years and whose reputation is vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and Secretary to Government of the Department concerned should be considered as falling under category (iii) of item (B) above. 21. Thus, when the disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings are pending and if the proceedings are not concluded within two years from the date of the meeting of the first departmental promotion committee or screening committee, in which their cases were considered for the first time, shall also be included in the panel. 22. There is difference between initiation of disciplinary proceedings and ordering departmental enquiry. 23. 22. There is difference between initiation of disciplinary proceedings and ordering departmental enquiry. 23. Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 deals with authority to institute proceedings. According to Rule 19, the Government or any other authority empowered by it by general or special order may-institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant; direct a disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any Government servant on whom that disciplinary authority is competent to impose under these rules any of the penalties specified in Rule 9 or Rule 10. Whereas, the procedure to be followed for imposing major penalty is prescribed under Rule 20. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 20 specifies that whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government Servant, it may itself inquiry into, or appoint under this Rule, as the case may be, authority to enquire into the truth thereof. According to sub-rule (3) where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government Servant under this Rule and Rule 21, the Disciplinary Authority or the Controlling Authority who is not designated as Disciplinary Authority and who is subordinate to the Appointing Authority can draw up or cause to be drawn up (i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge. (ii) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain (a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government Servant (b) A list of documents by which and a list of witness by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be served and call for written statement from the Government Servant to take further action. 24. If the disciplinary authority itself is enquiring authority, the authority can follow the procedure under sub-rule (6) onwards and submit a report prepared in terms of sub-rule (18) of Rule 20. The procedure being followed till consideration of written statement submitted on communication of charges is known as initiation of disciplinary proceedings and procedure subsequent to appointment of enquiry officer ordering departmental enquiry or disciplinary enquiry is known as ordering of disciplinary/departmental enquiry. 25. The procedure being followed till consideration of written statement submitted on communication of charges is known as initiation of disciplinary proceedings and procedure subsequent to appointment of enquiry officer ordering departmental enquiry or disciplinary enquiry is known as ordering of disciplinary/departmental enquiry. 25. In G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER-C) Department dated 10.06.1999, a reference was made as to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings or prosecution. So, the time limit of two (2) years would start from the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but not from the date of appointment of enquiry officer to conduct disciplinary/departmental proceedings against the Government servant. 26. As per G.O.Ms.No.529 General Administration (Services – C) Department dated 19.08.2008, when the disciplinary cases are not concluded even after two years and the promotion to the employees is deferred due to pendency of the disciplinary cases, ad-hoc promotion shall be considered pending finalization of the disciplinary cases. In the said Government Order, the Government issued the following direction: “After careful consideration, Government direct to consider the cases of employees for promotion to the next higher categories wherever the charges are held not proved by the Criminal Court and acquitted them, even though an appeal is preferred before the Higher Court against such acquittal.” 27. G.O.Ms.No.529 General Administration (Services – C) Department dated 19.08.2008 is limited to consideration of candidature of Government servants for promotion after acquittal by the criminal court, even though an appeal is pending questioning such acquittal in the appellate Court. 28. Turning to the facts of the present case, the petitioner is not facing trial in any criminal Court, but facing departmental enquiry ordered against him. Joint Collector – III, Prakasam District was appointed as inquiring officer vide G.O.RT.No.155 Revenue (Vigilance.I) Department dated 22.01.2020 and District Revenue Officer, Prakasam District was appointed as Presenting Officer vide G.O.RT.No.156 Revenue (Vigilance.I) Department dated 22.01.2020. Thus, the disciplinary enquiry deemed to have been ordered and pending from the date of issuance of G.O.RT.No.155 and G.O.RT.No.156 i.e. 22.01.2020. Therefore, as on date, two (2) years period from the date of ordering enquiry is not completed. But the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 28.03.2019. The period of two (2) years from the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings will expire by 27.03.2021. Therefore, as on date, two (2) years period from the date of ordering enquiry is not completed. But the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 28.03.2019. The period of two (2) years from the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings will expire by 27.03.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion on ad hoc basis to the next higher cadre either under G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 19.08.2008. 29. The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are silent as to the exact date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. But the proceedings prescribed under Rule 20 (3) can be said to be date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Though the date of initiation of proceedings is not specifically described under CCA Rules, Rule 9 (6) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules prescribed the starting point of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Rule 9 (6) is extracted hereunder for better appreciation. 9 (6) for the purpose of this rule – (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner of if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date; on such date; and (b) Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted – (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of Civil Proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court.” 30. Though, it is for limited purpose of payment of pension under revised pension rules, the same analogy can be applied to determine the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the “departmental proceedings” shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant in accordance with Rule 20 (3) of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. In cases where only a preliminary inquiry into the allegations or where it is contemplated to initiate departmental proceedings, it cannot be presumed that the departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 9 (2) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (vide: Circular Memo No.37254/361/A2/Pen.I/98 dated 04.07.1998 of Finance and Planning (FW:Pen.1) Department. 31. In cases where only a preliminary inquiry into the allegations or where it is contemplated to initiate departmental proceedings, it cannot be presumed that the departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 9 (2) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (vide: Circular Memo No.37254/361/A2/Pen.I/98 dated 04.07.1998 of Finance and Planning (FW:Pen.1) Department. 31. In the facts of the case, though complaint was received long back, no charges were framed and issued/served on the petitioner, but the issue/service of charges took place on 28.03.2019 and the same can be treated as the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings for all practical purposes including for the purpose of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 19.08.2008. 32. Therefore, in the present facts of the case, two (2) years prescribed under the said Government Orders is not yet completed. Hence, no relief can be granted as claimed by the petitioner. 33. In view of my foregoing discussion, it is clear that the case of the petitioner would not fall within the purview of G.O.Ms.No.529 General Administration (Services - C) Department dated 19.08.2008 and it would fall within the purview of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER-C) Department dated 10.06.1999 for the reason that the departmental proceedings are initiated long back, but disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 28.03.2019, two years will expire by 27.03.2021 (G.O.Rt.No.450 Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department dated 28.03.2019). But the petitioner filed objections for non-inclusion of his name in the seniority list on the ground that the period of two (2) years commenced from the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings, not from the date of appointing inquiry officer. Understanding of the petitioner is contrary to the rules and the departmental proceedings are deemed to have been commenced only from the date of service of charge memo i.e. 28.03.2019 vide G.O.Rt.No.450 Revenue (Vigilance.I) Department dated 28.03.2019, not prior to that. Therefore, the period of two (2) years is to be calculated from the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings i.e. date of service of charge memo. Therefore, the period of two (2) years is to be calculated from the date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings i.e. date of service of charge memo. Therefore, rejection of objections filed by the petitioner for non-inclusion of his name in the seniority list for being considered to the next cadre is in accordance with the rules and on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER-C) Department dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.529 General Administration (Services - C) Department dated 19.08.2008, the respondents cannot be directed to promote the petitioner on ad hoc or temporary basis fixing his seniority suitably in the list. 34. As per the instructions issued by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh vide reference No.V.S.I(1)/1033/2022 dated 05.09.2002, time frame is fixed for every step, which is as follows: 1. Issue of Charge Memo 2. Submission of explanation by the Delinquent officer 10 days 3. Furnishing of remarks on the Explanation of the delinquent officer 15 days 4. Submission of enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer 60 days 5. Submission of explanation by the Delinquent officer to the show cause Show cause notice issued indicating Provisional conclusion/punishment 15 days 6. Passing of final orders 30 days 35. Thus, as per the said instructions, the departmental enquiry shall be completed within 130 days. 36. The said instructions issued by the disciplinary authority are not based on any Government Order, but it is only a time frame fixed by the State Government by issuing circular for completion of disciplinary cases to avoid mental agony to the Government employees, who are facing disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecutions. The said time frame fixed in the circular is not inconsonance with the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. But taking advantage of the said circular, the petitioner cannot claim inclusion of his name in the seniority list to consider his candidature for ad hoc promotion to the next cadre. 37. In any view of the matter, as per G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER-C) Department dated 10.06.1999, the disciplinary proceedings are deemed to have been commended only from the date of service of charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.450 Revenue (Vigilance.I) Department dated 28.03.2019, therefore, the period of two (2) years is not completed as on the date of issuing impugned proceedings Rc.A1/423/2020 dated 18.11.2020. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief. Consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 38. In the result, the writ petition dismissed. No costs. 39. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.