Mere Pendency Of Disciplinary Inquiry Or Apprehension Of Any Adverse Orders Cannot Be A Ground To Maintain Writ Petition: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Court was hearing an intra-court Appeal assailing the order where the Single Judge quashed the disciplinary proceedings midway, i.e., at the stage when the enquiry had been completed, the report had been submitted to the disciplinary authority, and the disciplinary authority had issued the second show cause notice enclosing the report and calling for his explanation.

The bench of Justice G Narender and Justice Kiranmayee Mandava observed, “The approach of the learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, amounts to usurping the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, which we find to be impermissible…The mere pendency of the inquiry or the Writ Petitioner’s apprehension of any adverse orders cannot be a ground to maintain the Writ Petition.”

Advocate JN Venkata Suresh Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

The Court said that the Single Judge could not have usurped the role of the disciplinary authority and scuttled the proceedings midway. As per the Court, the statute vests the authority, either to impose or not to impose punishment after appreciating the matter on merits, on the disciplinary authority only.

“By the impugned order, this process has been preempted.”, the Court added.

The Court said that mere issuance of the show cause notice would not confer jurisdiction on the Court to entertain and appreciate the Writ Petition.

“In the absence of any right of the litigant being adversely affected, we do not see how the learned Single Judge could have heard and ordered the Writ Petition.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the Appeal in part.

Cause Title: Chief Commissioner Of State Tax (ap), and Others v. Sri G Prabhakara Murthy (Neutral Citation: APHC010343602024)

Click here to read/download Judgment