ORDER: 1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-Transport Commissioner, in refusing to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post i.e. Road Transport Officer on erroneous assumption that disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are subsisting as on date, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Road Transport Officer from the date when his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits treating the disciplinary proceedings as elapsed by efflux of time.” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1989 as Mechanic for GDS Vijayawada and subsequently he was promoted from cadre to cadre and presently he is holding as Motor Vehicles Inspector. During his tenure, the petitioner was never imposed with any penalty much less any proceedings initiated under Rule 20 of CCA and CCS Rules for imposing either minor or major penalty. While he was working at Tetagunta check post at Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District from 04.05.2010 to 28.11.2011, a surprise check was conducted on 17.10.2010 by ACB officials, basing on which, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 13.10.2015 after lapse of a period of four years of the surprise check. It is alleged in the charge memo that the petitioner failed to supervise his subordinates properly and gave scope for collection of illegal gratification while he was on duty. He submitted his explanation on 23.11.2015 to the said charge memo, refuting the charges levelled against him and requested to drop further action. The charges levelled against the petitioner are neither grave nor any pecuniary loss occurred to the State and it revolves around misconduct or dereliction of duty or negligence in duty. 3. While the things stood thus, the petitioner was also issued a charge memo on 02.12.2016 alleging that while he was working in the office of Transport Commissioner at Tetagunta, a surprise check was conducted by ACB officials on 28.11.2011, alleging that money was being collected by the employees by engaging private persons as agents. 3. While the things stood thus, the petitioner was also issued a charge memo on 02.12.2016 alleging that while he was working in the office of Transport Commissioner at Tetagunta, a surprise check was conducted by ACB officials on 28.11.2011, alleging that money was being collected by the employees by engaging private persons as agents. The said charge memo was issued on 02.12.2016 after a period of five years. The Articles of the said charge reveal that the petitioner, in collusion with other staff at the check post, allowed unauthorized persons to act as agents in violation of Circular Orders and thus, indulged in corrupt practices from 26.11.2011 to 28.11.2011. He submitted his explanation on 29.04.2019 to the said charge memo, refuting the allegations made in the charge memo. Pursuant to the notice issued by DSP, ACB, Rajahmundry, the petitioner submitted his reply on 09.11.2012 requesting to drop further proceedings in the departmental proceedings. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he became eligible for promotion to the post of Road Transport Officer under Scheduled Caste quota, his junior was promoted, denying his promotion on the sole ground of alleged incidents of surprise check held on 17.10.2010 and 28.11.2011 respectively. The petitioner, having put in seventeen years of service in the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspector, is eligible to be considered for promotion to the next cadre of Regional Transport Commissioner under S.C. quota. When his case was not considered for promotion, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7944 of 2013, which was disposed on 12.11.2013 directing the State to consider his application for promotion, but the said order was not implemented. Even though the petitioner made several requests ventilating his grievances, his name was not even mentioned in the ROR roster though he became eligible for promotion in the year 2013. The petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, wherein certain time limit was prescribed for completion of inquiries in simple cases and critical cases ranging from 3 to 6 months and the said guidelines requiring the Investigating Officers to complete the investigation expeditiously, preferably within six months. But, the respondent authorities has not completed the disciplinary proceedings within the time prescribed. 5. But, the respondent authorities has not completed the disciplinary proceedings within the time prescribed. 5. He further relied upon 20 of CCA and CCS Rules contemplates that when an enquiry is to be conducted, charges have to be framed and the enquiry is to be conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer. Since the Rules do not prescribe any time limit for conducting enquiry, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 prescribed time limit stating that in the matter of inflicting minor penalty, the enquiry shall be completed within three months and in case of imposing major penalty, the enquiry shall be completed within a period of six months. The Government in its wisdom has issued the said G.O. stating that any delay in conducting enquiry would hinder the right of the officer to prove his innocence and therefore, the enquiry should be completed at the earliest. Further, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 10.06.1999 issued certain guidelines, wherein it is stated that an employee can be considered for ad hoc promotion only if disciplinary proceedings are not concluded within two years from the date of affecting promotions after disciplinary proceedings are initiated, subject to fulfilment of other requirements of promotion. He further contended that in so far as criminal proceedings are concerned, Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes certain limitation period for prosecution of the case which cannot beyond three years. 6. The 2nd respondent filed his counter, while denying the averments in the writ petition, contended that the petitioner, while he was working in Tetagunta Check post, East Godavari District, a surprise check was conducted by ACB officials on 28.11.2011 and another case was registered vide Crime No.12/RCO-RJY/2011, under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) read with 109 and 34 IPC of ACB, Rajahmundry Range, Rajahmundry. The petitioner along with others was arrested on 29.11.2011 and was remanded till 14.12.2011. As he was detained for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.11.2011 vide proceedings dated 03.12.2011 and subsequently, he was reinstated into service vide G.O.Rt.No.51, TR & B (Vig.III.2) Department, dated 09.01.2013. 7. The petitioner along with others was arrested on 29.11.2011 and was remanded till 14.12.2011. As he was detained for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.11.2011 vide proceedings dated 03.12.2011 and subsequently, he was reinstated into service vide G.O.Rt.No.51, TR & B (Vig.III.2) Department, dated 09.01.2013. 7. Further, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 had prescribed certain time limit for completion of inquiries in simple cases and critical cases ranging from 3 to 6 months and the guidelines issued by the Government requiring the Investigating Officers to complete the investigation expeditiously, preferably within six months, do not have any statutory force and they were merely in the nature of instructions for guidance of Investigating Officers and that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce the administrative instructions as the guidelines issued by the Government do not confer any enforceable right upon any person. 8. The 2nd respondent further stated that the case of the petitioner came up on 12.02.2019 for the first time in the zone of consideration before the Departmental Promotion Committee, which considered his name for inclusion in the panel for promotion as Regional Transport Officer for the panel year 2018-2019 and deferred his name stating that he was involved in three ACB cases and departmental disciplinary proceedings were already initiated in two ACB cases where charges were framed, keeping in view the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. It is further stated that in the third ACB case registered on 27.07.2018, the petitioner along with eight others were involved and an unaccounted amount of Rs.1,00,270/- was seized during the surprise check. As per G.O.Ms.No.257, and the Circular Memo No.15813/Ser.C/2007, dated 11.09.2007, in respect of the officers against whom charges of misconduct are framed and served on them, their promotion has to be deferred. As the petitioner involved in three ACB cases, which are related to collecting illegal gratification, where charge memos were issued in the first two cases and referred to Commissioner of Inquiries and accordingly an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 26.06.2020 and 01.09.2020 respectively, his case was deferred. On 30.08.2020, the Government requested the DG, ACB to nominate the Presenting Officer and accordingly, the promotion of the petitioner was deferred. 9. Heard Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 10. On 30.08.2020, the Government requested the DG, ACB to nominate the Presenting Officer and accordingly, the promotion of the petitioner was deferred. 9. Heard Sri Ch. Samson Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments of the writ petition referred to supra, relied upon various decisions reported in P.V. Mahadevan v. Md. T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “....the delay of more than 10 years in initiating the disciplinary proceedings by issuance of charge memo would render the departmental proceedings vitiated and that in the absence of any explanation for the inordinate delay in initiating such proceedings of issuance of charge memo would justify the prayer for quashing the proceedings.....” “.......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 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. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer....” 11. Similarly, in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held as follows: “......It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. Similarly, in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held as follows: “......It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately......” “......the Rules and practice normally followed in such cases may be different. The promotion so made, if any, pending the enquiry shall, however, be subject to review after the conclusion of the enquiry and in the light of the findings in the enquiry. It is also directed that the enquiry against the respondent shall be concluded within eight months from today. The respondent shall cooperate in concluding the enquiry. It is obvious that if the respondent does not so cooperate, it shall be open to the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte. If the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aforesaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped.....” 12. Likewise, in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. A. Rajeswara Reddy, 2010 (4) ALT 374 (DB), wherein this Court categorically held as follows: “…..There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down by this court in State of A.P. and another V. Ramulu and another ( 2010 (1) ALT 178 (DB) with reference to G.O.Ms.No.257 G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, whereunder certain guidelines were formulated, which, inter alia, relate to deferring of promotion/appointment by transfer to higher post in respect of officers who are facing disciplinary proceedings, when charges are framed and charge memo served. But, in the subsequent orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, departmental enquiries are directed to be completed within certain time schedules, categorizing them into simple cases being completed within three months and complicated cases being completed within six months. But, in the subsequent orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, departmental enquiries are directed to be completed within certain time schedules, categorizing them into simple cases being completed within three months and complicated cases being completed within six months. Though orders in G.O.Ms.No.679, were issued by the Government and which was in existence when the order in State of A.P. and another v. Ramulu and another (1supra), came to be issued, but the fact remains, the same was not brought to the notice of the Court, and as such, the said G.O. did not receive the consideration by the court. The petitioners have not cited any reason as to why they did not complete the enquiry within the time schedules prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.679, and why the disciplinary proceedings are still not concluded even though more than one and half years have elapsed from time the date the respondent submitted his explanation to the articles of charge issued by the petitioners……” 13. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was involved in three ACB cases and in two ACB cases, departmental proceedings are initiated where charges were framed and served on the petitioner, as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. It is also not in dispute that due to pendency of the above proceedings, the case of the petitioner for further promotion was deferred till completion of such disciplinary proceedings. The only issue that is involved herein is that the delay in initiating the disciplinary proceedings in spite of issuance of charge memo would amount to depriving the petitioner of his entitlement for further promotion? 14. It is to be noted that one of the major areas of litigation in service matters is inordinate delay in initiation/conclusion of disciplinary proceedings and on that ground of inordinate delay in initiation and conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, would amount to depriving the employees of their entitlement for promotion. 15. A perusal of the material on record makes it clear that the charges levelled against the petitioner with regard to illegal gratification and indulgence in collection of money, are serious in nature. It is not in dispute that ACB cases were also registered against the petitioner, apart from disciplinary proceedings. Because of pendency of such disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was deprived of getting promotion. It is not in dispute that ACB cases were also registered against the petitioner, apart from disciplinary proceedings. Because of pendency of such disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was deprived of getting promotion. Admittedly, after ACB trap was made in the year 2018, no further steps have been taken in initiating the proceedings. However, when the case of the petitioner came up for promotion before the Departmental Promotion Committee, his case was deferred only on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. A perusal of the material on record makes it clear that the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 prescribed certain time limits for completion of inquiries. As per the said G.O., the disciplinary enquiry should be completed within six months wherever the allegations are serious in nature. But, in the present case, the disciplinary enquiry could not be completed within the stipulated time. It is no doubt that as per the G.O.Ms.No.679, the disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within the prescribed period. If there is any delay in completion of the proceedings, the competent authority has to explanation such delay. The delay on the part of the authorities cannot be ground to make the employee to suffer. It is for the authorities that if an employee is found fit for promotion, he may be promoted immediately subject to outcome of the enquiry pending against the employee, if not completed within the prescribed period. 16. Having regard to the above facts and in view of the law laid down in the judgments referred to supra, this court is of the view that because of delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer the consequential benefit of promotions because of delay by the authorities in completing the disciplinary proceedings. 17. In view of foregoing discussion, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher cadre to which he becomes eligible, subject to result of the disciplinary proceedings pending against him, if not concluded so far. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.