ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of Respondents in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner as violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; to consequently directly forthwith conclude the disciplinary proceedings in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD dated 12.09.2022 or in the alternative to quash the proceedings. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner was initially appointed as Work Inspector on 17.01.1987 and subsequently promoted to the post of Draughtsman on 23.03.1988. Later, the Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Engineer on 13.08.1997 and further promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer on 15.01.2018. The Petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2021, on attaining the age of superannuation. During the course of employment, the Petitioner was issued five (5) disciplinary proceedings from 2014 onwards. The details of the charge memos are given below: (i) Charge Memo in Procgs.No.B2/CB3/202/2014-B dated 17.06.2014. (ii) Charge Memo in Procgs.No.B2/Vig&Enft/Rep-11/2021-2 dated 25.03.2021. (iii) Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.242 SW (TW.SER.II) dept. dated 13.07.2023. (iv) Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.72 Dept., of TW (SER) dated 15.05.2024. (v) Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.29 Dept., of TW (SER) dated 13.03.2025. 3. The Charge Memo No.1 dated 17.06.2014 pertains to the allegation that the Petitioner had committed certain irregularities regarding road works taken under MGNREGS in TW Division, Paderu, where he was working as Assistant Engineer (TW) Koyyuru and caused loss to a tune of Rs.15,48,711/- in formation of gravel road from Munasala to Domalagondi and widening and gravelling the road from P-A R& B Road to Kithalangi in Dumbriguda Mandal. The basis of the charge is the vigilance report dated 17.09.2013. 4. An enquiry Officer was appointed on 22.03.2022 and the Petitioner had given detailed explanation denying the charges in the month of March, 2023 and there is no progress in the enquiry from that date. 5. The Charge Memo No.2 dated 25.03.2021 was concerned with regard to the Petitioner’s work as Deputy Executive Engineer, (TW) Sub-Division, Pathapatnam. The solitary Article of Charge pertains to irregularities in execution of works i.e. (i) Executed the entire work without approval from the competent authority (ii) Executed gravel sub base with huge deficiency in thickness and inferior quality gravel. (iii) Executed CC road with most inferior quality and deficiency in thickness. (iv) Check measured earth work for formation of embankment without actual execution. (iii) Executed CC road with most inferior quality and deficiency in thickness. (iv) Check measured earth work for formation of embankment without actual execution. (v) Excess length of Gravel sub base and CC roads were check measured. The basis of the charge is the vigilance report dated 24.09.2020. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 31.08.2021 denying the charges and there is no progress in the enquiry. 6. Nearly two years after the Petitioner’s retirement from service, Charge Memo No.3 was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.242 Social Welfare (TW.SER.II) Department dated 13.07.2023 and the solitary Article of Charge was that the Petitioner had executed the plinth beam of dormitory building with inferior quality concrete thereby failed in charging duties, which shows lack of integrity. The basis of the charge is the vigilance report dated 30.08.2022. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 29.09.2023 denying the charges and there is no progress in the enquiry. 7. Charge Memo No.4 was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.72 Department of Tribal Welfare (SER) dated 15.05.2024 stating the solitary Article of charge was that the Petitioner had check measured the work and recommended the bill for payment despite inferior quality of concrete work for providing BT surface from Dantha to ST Jarali via Madanapuram in Madanapuram village of Sarvakota Mandal, Srikakulam District at an estimated cost of Rs.165.00 lakhs. The basis of the charge is the vigilance report dated 31.03.2023. The Petitioner filed his final explanation on 25.04.2025 contending that the charge memo is contrary to Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Though an Enquiry Officer was appointed on 18.06.2024, there is no progress in the enquiry. 8. Charge Memo No.5 was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.29 dated 13.03.2025. The solitary article of charge was with regard to (i) formation of road by mechanical means road from Nelabonthu Bheempuram road to Veernnaghat, Kerasingi GP of Meliputti Mandal in Srikakulam District with an estimated cost of Rs.4.00 lakhs. (ii) Formation of road from Sarubujjill road Murugadalova in Chorlangi GP of LN Peta Mandal of Srikakulam District with an estimated cost Rs.8.60 lakhs and (iii) Formation of road from Nelabonthu Bheempuram road to Mutyalabonthu in Kerasingi Panchayat of Meliaputti Mandal of Srikakulam District with an estimated cost Rs.6.90 lakhs. 9. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on the ground that the charge memo is in contravention of Rule 9(2) (b) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. 9. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on the ground that the charge memo is in contravention of Rule 9(2) (b) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. However, no progress is made nor an Enquiry Officer was appointed in the said case. 10. In view of the pending disciplinary proceedings, the retirement benefits of the Petitioner were not settled in spite of lapse of nearly four (4) years from the date of retirement. Hence, the present writ petition is filed seeking for the reliefs mentioned above. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings per se is a ground to quash the same and reflects lack of seriousness on the Government in concluding the same at the earliest. The further contention of the learned counsel is that the time frames have been fixed vide G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022, fixing specific time limits and the time limits are not adhered to by the Respondent-authorities. 12. As regards the Charge Nos.4 and 5, learned counsel would contend that the same is unsustainable in view of Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as the misconduct alleged against the Petitioner pertains to beyond four years from the date of issuance of charge memo and the charge memos cannot be sustained. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the allegations are with regard to constructions and laying of road and the date of knowledge of the Respondents is not the criteria, but the date of alleged misconduct is the criteria and therefore the charge memos cannot be sustained. 13. Learned Government Pleader would submit that the allegations against the Petitioner in all the five charge memos are serious and they are based on vigilance reports, which reflect poor quality of work in tribal welfare areas and the Petitioner cannot seek to exonerate himself on account of delay and procedural lapses in the department. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that the delay is not prejudicing the defence in the enquiry in any way as such the delay cannot be taken advantage by the Petitioner. 14. Having heard the respective counsel, the following issues fall for consideration in this writ petition. (1) Whether delay in conclusion of enquiry with regard to charge memorandum Nos.1 to 4 referred above is prejudicial to Petitioner and warrant quashing of the same? 14. Having heard the respective counsel, the following issues fall for consideration in this writ petition. (1) Whether delay in conclusion of enquiry with regard to charge memorandum Nos.1 to 4 referred above is prejudicial to Petitioner and warrant quashing of the same? (2) Whether the charge memorandum No.5 is in consonance with Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980? (3) Whether the Disciplinary authority can be accountable for delay in conclusion of the enquiries? 15. Issue No.1 : The plea to quash the charge memorandums on account of delay was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions which will be referred to in the course of the order. One line of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court is to the effect that the inordinate delay in conclusion departmental enquiry is prejudicial to the delinquent and the charge memorandums were quashed on that ground alone. The judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court where charge memorandums were quashed on account of delay are as follows: (1) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another , 1990 Cri. L.J. 1315 (2) P.V. Mahadevan vs M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 636 (3) M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India and others , (2006) 5 SCC 88 16. There are another line of judgments given below where it was held that the charge memorandums cannot be quashed only on account of delay and the gravity of charge,prejudice on account of delay have to be examined: (1) Registrar, Co-operative Societies vs. Sachindra Nath Pandey, (1995) 3 SCC 134 (2) Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department vs. L. Srinivasan, (1996) 3 SCC 157 (3) P.D. Agarwal vs. State Bank of India, (2006) 8 SCC 776 (4) Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Appalaswamy, (2007) 14 SCC 49 (5) Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and others vs. A. Masilamani, (2013) 6 SCC 530 (6) Union of India vs. Udai Bhan Singh, 2019 SCC Online SC 1596 17. A single judge of this Court in W.P.No.17569 of 2020 had meticulously considered the above judgments referred apart from other judgments on the same line and observed at paragraph 27 by crystallizing the factors that need to be taken into consideration for quashing a charge memorandum on account of inordinate delay. The paragraph 27 of the order is extracted below: 27. The paragraph 27 of the order is extracted below: 27. A perusal of the judgments of the Hon?ble Supreme Court would show that the factors that need to be taken into account while dealing with the question whether the proceedings should be quashed or not, on the ground of delay, are as follows: 1) Whether the seriousness of the charges are such that delay is not sufficient to quash the proceedings; 2) Whether there is inordinate delay between the event and the initiation of disciplinary proceeding; 3) Whether the lapse of time from the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding to the completion of the proceeding is beyond the normal; 4) Whether there is any explanation for such delay. 5) Whether any part of the delay was on account of the public servant. 6) Whether the delay has caused prejudice to the case of the Public servant. It would not be necessary that all the above factors have to be fulfilled before a proceeding can be quashed. The Court would have to evaluate the facts and then take a decision. As cautioned by the Hon?ble Supreme Court, the above factors are non exhaustive as each case would have to be considered on the facts of that case and there can be no fixed matrix to determine the question “to quash or not to quash”. 18. After referring to all the judgments, the learned single Judge while referring to the judgment in State of A.P. vs. N. Radhakrishan , (1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 154 held that the balance has to be struck between the right of the public servant for expeditious disposal of disciplinary proceedings as against the fact that disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take their course. 19. Coming back to the facts of this case, there cannot be any explanation for non-conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated in the year 2014 vide Charge Memo in Procgs.No.B2/CB3/202/2014-B dated 17.06.2014 which was issued on the basis of a vigilance report. It is not as though there is no long list of witnesses to be examined to justify the delay or any complicated facts have to be unravelled. It is to be noted that the prejudice in the conclusion of the inquiry vis-a-vis a retired employee is all the more as the retirement benefits would be struck in view extant Rules. 20. It is to be noted that the prejudice in the conclusion of the inquiry vis-a-vis a retired employee is all the more as the retirement benefits would be struck in view extant Rules. 20. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the charge Memo in Procgs.No.B2/CB3/202/2014-B dated 17.06.2014 on the sole ground of non-conclusion of enquiry for over 11 years. As regards the Charge Memorandum Nos.2 to 4, which were issued in the years 2021, 2023 and 2024, the same cannot be said to be unduly delayed warranting quashing of the charge memorandums on account of delay. 21. Issue No.2: The Petitioner had retired from service on 31.10.2021. The Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 limits issuance of a charge memorandum to a retired employee regarding any incident that took place more than four years before such an institution. The Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 is extracted below: 2) (a) ….. (b) The Departmental Proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.. 22. The allegation in the Charge Memorandum No.5 issued vide G.O.Rt.No.29 Dept., of TW (SER) dated 13.03.2025 pertains to the years 2017 and 2018 as per the statement of imputation. The article of charge is that the Petitioner had measured the work and recommended the bill for payment despite inferior quality of concrete work for providing BT surface from Dantha to ST Jarati via Madanapuram in Madanapuram Village of Sarvakota Mandal. 23. The impugned charge memorandum issued on 13.03.2025 is not in consonance with Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980 as highlighted above which states that no charge memorandum for an incident that occurred four (04) years prior to the issuance of charge memorandum. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering a similar provision i.e Regulation 351-A of Civil Services Regulations in State of U.P. v. Shri Krishna Pandey , (1996) 9 SCC 395 , held that the incident of loss or misconduct should have happened four years from the date of institution of the proceedings. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below; “But the events of misconduct etc. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below; “But the events of misconduct etc. which may have resulted in the loss to the Government or embezzlement, i.e., the cause for the institution of proceedings, should not have taken place more than four years before the date of institution of proceedings. In other words, the departmental proceedings must be instituted before lapse of four years from the date on which the event of misconduct etc. had taken place. 24. In that view, the impugned charge memorandums cannot be sustained and G.O.Rt.No.29 Dept., of TW (SER) dated 13.03.2025 is liable to be quashed. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly. 25. Issue No.3 : The A.P Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 does not provide specific time limit for concluding enquiry. However, taking note of inordinate delays in concluding the enquiries, G.O.Ms.No.679 (GAD) dated 01.11.2008 had been issued by the State directing the disciplinary authorities to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. Paragraph 3 thereon is extracted: 3. Government direct that the disciplinary cases initiated against the Government employees shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and the existing instructions read above shall be adhered to. The Departments of Secretariat shall review the status position of the pending disciplinary cases against all the employees with which they are concerned and submit a note to the Chief Secretary to Government as per the instructions in force. It is also the responsibility of the inquiring authorities to complete the inquiry as per the allowed time. The Competent Authority, after receipt of the inquiry report shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 6 months of its initiation and in case of abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, action shall be initiated against concerned inquiring authority. 26. In spite of the above G.O., the disciplinary enquiries were not being concluded in time and the Government taking note of the hardship being faced by the delinquent Officers, fixed time limits vide G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD dated 12.09.2022 directing the disciplinary authorities to conclude the enquiries within a period of three months in simple cases and five to six months in complicated cases. 27. 27. In the comprehensive instructions given, the Secretaries to the Government were also directed to review the progress of the enquiries and submit a note with regard to pending cases beyond the stipulated time to the Chief Secretary as well as to the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Time schedules were also provided in clause 5(x) thereof. 28. It is relevant to note that for once, answerability from the inquiring authorities was called from and failure to complete the enquiry within the time schedules was considered a misconduct making them liable for disciplinary enquiry. The Clause 5 (xi) G.O.Ms.No.91 GAD dated 12.09.2022 would be of relevance for the purpose of this case, which reads as under: xl. The Government further order that the Inquiring Authorities are liable for disciplinary action for their failure to complete the Inquiry within stipulated period. In cases, where large number of witnesses are to be examined and voluminous material papers are to be verified, the Inquiring Authorities shall invariably take prior permission of the concerned disciplinary authorities by submitting detailed reasons for continuing the departmental inquiry beyond the stipulated period. 29. In spite of the same, the disciplinary enquiries remain pending for eons. The reason appears to be that the disciplinary authority who initiated the enquiry is not made answerable for the delay. It is noted that disciplinary enquiry is initiated only when subjective satisfaction is recorded for initiation of enquiry under Rule 20(2) of the APCCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, The Rule 20(2) reads as follows: "(2) 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." 30. Though, the enquiry is initiated by the disciplinary authority, but no accountability is sought from this authority who initiated enquiry in the above G.O. nor under the Rules. In the absence of any answerability from the disciplinary authority, the clause (xi) in the G.O.Ms No.91 does not have the necessary bite to ensure conclusion. The unaccounted power and discretion conferred on the disciplinary authority to initiate enquiry coupled with total lack of answerability appears to be the principal cause for the delay. Unless, this aspect is redressed, the delay in conclusion of enquiry would be perennial. 31. The unaccounted power and discretion conferred on the disciplinary authority to initiate enquiry coupled with total lack of answerability appears to be the principal cause for the delay. Unless, this aspect is redressed, the delay in conclusion of enquiry would be perennial. 31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had expressed concern regarding delay in concluding enquiries in Prem Nath Bali v. High Court of Delhi , (2015) 16 SCC 415 . The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below: “ 26. Time and again, this Court has emphasised that it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the departmental enquiry initiated against the delinquent employee is concluded within the shortest possible time by taking priority measures. In cases where the delinquent is placed under suspension during the pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the delinquent employee.” 32. The delay in conclusion led to parallel career claims inundating the Courts for promotion, revocation of suspension, retirement benefits and the never ending claims of seniority. In this context, the conclusion of enquiry at the earliest should be a facet of the Litigation policy of the State to avoid unwarranted litigation. It would be ideal if there is a nodal authority keeping track of all the disciplinary enquiries to mitigate delays and ensure swift conclusion. 33. Therefore, this issue is answered by holding the Disciplinary authority/Officer manning the authority as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer answerable for the undue delay in concluding enquiries. 34. In the light of the above, the Writ petition is disposed of with following directions: (i) The Charge Memorandum No.1 issued vide Procgs.No.B2/CB3/202/2014-B dated 17.06.2014 is quashed on account of delay of more than 11 years in concluding the enquiry. (ii) The Charge Memorandum No.5 issued vide G.O.Rt.No.29 Dept., of TW (SER) dated 13.03.2025 is quashed in view of Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. (iii) The Disciplinary authority shall conclude the disciplinary enquiry with regard to (a) Charge Memo in Procgs.No.B2/Vig&Enft/Rep-11/2021-2 dated 25.03.2021 (b) Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.242 SW (TW.SER.II) dept. (ii) The Charge Memorandum No.5 issued vide G.O.Rt.No.29 Dept., of TW (SER) dated 13.03.2025 is quashed in view of Rule 9(2) (b) (ii) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules, 1980. (iii) The Disciplinary authority shall conclude the disciplinary enquiry with regard to (a) Charge Memo in Procgs.No.B2/Vig&Enft/Rep-11/2021-2 dated 25.03.2021 (b) Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.242 SW (TW.SER.II) dept. dated 13.07.2023 and (c) Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.72 Dept., of TW (SER) dated 15.05.2024 within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (iv) The Disciplinary authority/ Officer acting on behalf of the Government along with the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be accountable for non-conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry within the time fixed above. (v) No orders as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.