The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that a disciplinary enquiry against a retired police officer cannot be quashed merely because it remained pending for several years. The court held that delay by itself is not enough to terminate departmental proceedings, especially when serious allegations are involved and the employee's own conduct also contributed to the delay.
Background of the Case
The State government challenged a Single Judge's order that had set aside disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired police officer.
The departmental enquiry stemmed from charges issued in 2011. The allegations included misuse of official position, illegal collection of money from lorry drivers, harassment of subordinate police personnel, collecting funds from private companies in violation of rules, and failing to clear personal dues, allegedly affecting the image of the police department.
During the course of the enquiry, the officer was also convicted in a criminal case, dismissed from service, later acquitted in appeal, reinstated, and eventually retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The State argued that these developments, along with repeated transfers of enquiry officers and lack of cooperation during the enquiry, caused the delay.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench observed that the Single Judge had not properly examined whether the delay in completing the enquiry was attributable to the department or to the employee.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Chairman, LIC of India v. A. Masilamani, the Bench noted that courts should not ordinarily interfere with disciplinary proceedings solely because of delay. Every case must be assessed on its own facts, keeping in mind the seriousness of the allegations and the larger public interest.
The court observed,
'Delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, by itself, is not a ground to terminate them. All relevant circumstances must be weighed before exercising judicial review.'
The Bench also distinguished the case from the Supreme Court's decision in P.V. Mahadevan, pointing out that, unlike that case, there was no delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings here. The issue concerned the time taken to complete the enquiry, which involved several intervening events, including criminal proceedings and the employee's dismissal and reinstatement.
The court further held that the government order prescribing completion of disciplinary proceedings within six months is directory, not mandatory. According to the Bench, treating the time limit as absolute would encourage delaying tactics and defeat the purpose of disciplinary action in cases involving serious misconduct.
The Bench observed,
'The allegations are grave and cannot be swept under the carpet merely because the enquiry was not completed within six months.'
Decision
Allowing the State's appeal, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the earlier order that had quashed the disciplinary proceedings.
The court directed the authorities to complete the departmental enquiry within three months after receiving a copy of the judgment, after giving the retired officer a fair opportunity to participate. It also directed the officer to extend full cooperation during the enquiry.
The Bench further clarified that if the enquiry is not completed and final orders are not passed within the stipulated three-month period, the disciplinary proceedings will automatically stand terminated.
Case Details
Case Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Lambu Ravi Teja
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 1069 of 2025
Judges: Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Ninala Jayasurya
Decision Date: 19 June 2026
