The Andhra Pradesh High Court expressed serious concern over the huge backlog of disciplinary proceedings pending against government employees, observing that inordinate delays not only burden the judicial system with a flood of related writ petitions but also inflict mental agony on the employees concerned, directly impacting their right to a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The issue came up in a writ petition filed by a Special Grade Civil Surgeon challenging the prolonged pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The petitioner’s plea highlighted that charges framed in 2022 had still not been concluded despite court directions and Government Orders prescribing time limits for completion of such inquiries. The High Court noted that the protracted pendency of disciplinary cases had a wide judicial impact, with a large number of writ petitions being filed seeking various forms of relief such as promotion without reference to charge memos, restoration of seniority, retrospective promotions, quashing of disciplinary enquiries for delay, retirement benefits, and even consequential contempt matters.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed that the pendency of disciplinary cases is “elephantine” and pointed out that such prolonged proceedings cause mental distress and anxiety to the officers involved, many of whom have their retirement benefits and future prospects tied up with the outcome of the inquiries. The Court emphasised that the indeterminate delay in concluding disciplinary proceedings affects the right of employees, including retired officials, to lead a dignified life guaranteed under Article 21, as their financial entitlements and career progression remain in jeopardy for indeterminable lengths of time. The judge noted that although both the employee and the department have interests in the expeditious conclusion of inquiries — the former to secure certainty and peace of mind and the latter to ensure that those lacking integrity are appropriately dealt with and honest employees are incentivised — the realities of administrative and procedural delays frequently frustrate these objectives.
The High Court acknowledged the existence of Government Orders aimed at fixing time limits for the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, including a 2008 order that sought to balance the rights of employees with those of the department and a subsequent Government Order of 2022 which prescribed a maximum completion timeframe of three months for simple cases and six months for complicated inquiries. Despite these directives, disciplinary proceedings continue to drag on for years, reflecting administrative inertia and structural challenges. When the Court inquired into reasons for the delays, a report from the Chief Secretary enumerated a variety of administrative causes such as frequent transfers and retirements of officials handling the cases, incomplete and poorly maintained employee data, mergers and abolition of offices, new recruitments and promotions resulting in changes in disciplinary authorities, and malfunctioning record-keeping leading to files being scattered across offices.
The petitioner had originally filed a petition in 2022 seeking to quash the charge memo on the ground of delay, and the High Court had then directed the authorities to conclude the inquiry expeditiously. However, despite such orders and the timelines prescribed by Government Orders, the proceedings had still not been completed, prompting the fresh petition. In grappling with the systemic backlog, the Court observed that the traditional one-time adjudication model, where a writ petition results in a singular judgment, is inadequate to ensure compliance and does little to tackle chronic inaction on the part of administrative authorities or evasion tactics by delinquent employees.
In view of the persistent delays and the Court’s recognition of the right to expeditious conclusion of disciplinary proceedings as part of the broader right to life and dignity under Article 21, the High Court adopted the mechanism of continuing mandamus to lay down a structured oversight process. Rather than simply disposing of the petition with a declaratory order, the Court directed the State government to file periodic affidavits every four months updating the Court on the progress of all pending disciplinary proceedings. The periodic reporting requirement is designed to enable continuous judicial monitoring, provide a follow-up mechanism to ensure effective implementation of timelines, and address both administrative lethargy and deliberate stalling by respondents.
The High Court’s concern reflects the cumulative mental and professional strain faced by employees whose careers and retirement benefits hang in limbo due to delayed disciplinary action and underscores the constitutional imperative for State authorities to adopt timely and transparent processes that do not unduly prejudice the rights of individuals. By invoking continuing mandamus, the Court sought to infuse greater credibility and accountability into the process of concluding disciplinary cases and to mitigate the adverse human impact of delays. The matter was kept open for further monitoring with a next listing date set for June 19, ensuring sustained judicial engagement with the issue. The judgment affirms the principle that delay in administrative processes can, in certain contexts, amount to a violation of fundamental rights, and that courts have the authority to supervise implementation of rights over time rather than merely at a single point of adjudication.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.