The Court made the following order: CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the existing vacancy on mere pendency of Article of Charges in G.O.Rt.No.286 TR & B Department, 17-09-2024, and Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.337 TR & B Department, Dated 06-11-2024 for the work executed in the year 2016-2017 the initiation of disciplinary proceedings only to defer the legitimate promotion of the petitioner which is highly illegal, erroneous and vidictive in nature apart from contrary to the existing Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.679 GAD dated 1-11-2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91, GAD Dated 12-9-2022, and also causing much prejudice to the petitioner now, consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the existing vacancy without reference to the pending Charge Memos 17-09-2024 & 06-11-2024 issued by the 1st respondent, by kindly extend the similar orders passed in W.P.No.8195 of 2025, dated 01-04-2025 and 2010 (4) ALT 374 (D.B) and pass such other order or orders....” 2. Heard Sri Sarma C.V.S.S, learned counsel for the petitioner learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll for respondents. 3. Petitioner is working as Executive Engineer. He was issued charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.286, Transport Roads & Buildings (VIG,R&B) Department, dated 17.09.2024, alleging that he W.PNo.14499 of 2025 committed irregularities in execution of the works of improvements to R.Yerraguntapalli to Sangameswaramu (via) Thippepalli road in Ananthapuramu District, which was relating to the period of 2018. Petitioner submitted explanation refuting the allegations made therein and inquiry is stated to be pending. Likewise, petitioner was also issued another charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.337, Transport Roads & Buildings (ViG.R&B) Department, dated 06.11.2024, alleging that he committed irregularities in execution of road widening and strengthening works in Ananthapuramu District, which also relates to the period of 2017-18. Petitioner also seems to have submitted explanation refuting aforesaid allegations and inquiry IS stated to be pending. Petitioner is due for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and is under zone of consideration, because of pendency of present disciplinary proceedings, his case IS not being considered for promotion. 4. Petitioner also seems to have submitted explanation refuting aforesaid allegations and inquiry IS stated to be pending. Petitioner is due for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and is under zone of consideration, because of pendency of present disciplinary proceedings, his case IS not being considered for promotion. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8195 of 2025 dated 01.04.2025, urged to pass similar order by directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion without reference to the aforesaid memo. There is an inordinate delay in issuing charge memo, relating to the incidents occurred in the year 2017-2018, and so far, inquiry has not been concluded. 5, Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of pendency of these two departmental proceedings, case of petitioner is not being considered for the purpose of promotion. Besides, pendency of departmental proceedings and undue delay is causing immense hardship. It is also submitted that in view of Government circular Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98, dated 01.07.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 01.11.2008, fixing timelines for early completion of departmental proceedings by Commissioner of Inquries, the respondents cannot delay the inquiry and ought to have complete the same within the timeline prescribed therein. The aforesaid G.O. stipulates the timeline in simple cases, inquiry should be completed within three weeks and in complicated cases, it should be completed within five to six months. However, even after lapse of almost seven years, the respondents have not even appointed Inquiry Officer. Further, in continuation to aforesaid G.O., consolidated instructions were issued vide G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Service.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 reiterating aforesaid timelines. 6. He further placed reliance on State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan, (1998) 4 SCC 154 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether the delay has vitiated the disciplinary proceedings the court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. If the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it....” 7. In P.V. Mahadevan vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: 11. .... 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.” 8. Opposing the aforesaid submissions, learned Government Pleader contend that respondents are taking steps to conclude the inquiry within reasonable time and does not refute the submission that there was an inordinate delay in completing the inquiry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022. 9. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and keeping in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra, the employees cannot work under the constant threat of disciplinary proceedings. Despite fixing of timeline schedules as per the aforesaid G.Os, any further delay would frustrate the very purpose and intent of fixing the timeline for completing the inquiry. As the charges leveled against the petitioner appear to be grave in nature and considering that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings should not affect the petitioner’s career advancement, the petitioner cannot be denied the right to be considered for promotion. 10. As the charges leveled against the petitioner appear to be grave in nature and considering that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings should not affect the petitioner’s career advancement, the petitioner cannot be denied the right to be considered for promotion. 10. Even a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 17246 of 2024, though it was a case of pending inquiry in pursuant to charges, as the inquiry was not completed within the time frame fixed in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 22.09.2022 and in the guise of inquiry, the petitioner therein was not considered for promotion, by following the judgement of Division Bench in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. A.Rajeswara Reddy case issued the following directions: “8. In Government of A.P., vs. A.Rajeswara Reddy, it was held that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of Government are to be completed within three months in simple cases and In six months in case of complicated cases, as per the policy decision taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008. The Division Bench also directed the concerned Authorities to consider the case of the employee for promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, while upholding the order of the Administrative Tribunal. 9. Case at hand, as referred to supra, though the disciplinary proceedings were Initiated on 29.06.2022, inquiry is not concluded so far. 10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the judgment referred to supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent of learned counsel on either side at the admission stage, directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion without reference to disciplinary proceedings initiated vide G.O.Rt.No.482, dated 29.06.2022, if the petitioner possesses other requisite qualifications, as per law. No order as to costs.” 11. Even in the present case, the incident has happened in the year 2017-2018 and disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated in 2024. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; “The respondents, without reference and without taking into account or consideration of the charge memos vide by G.O.Rt.No.286, Transport Roads & Buildings (VIG.R&B) Department, dated 17.09.2024 and G.O.Rt.No.337, Transport Roads & Buildings (VIG.R&B) Department, dated 06.11.2024, are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if he is found fit for promotion in accordance with law. Further, the respondents are also directed to complete the inquiry within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.