IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
W.P.No. 13257 of 2020
Between:
B.Sanjeeva Reddy
... Petitioner
And
Southern Power Distribution Co. and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.11.2022
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
______________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
WP_13257_2020
2 SN,J
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
W.P.No. 13257 of 2020
% 25.11.2022
Between:
# B.Sanjeeva Reddy
..... Petitioner
And
$ Southern Power Distribution Co. and others
.....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. V.Ravichandran
^Counsel for the Respondents: Standing counsel for
TSTRANSCO
? Cases Referred:
WP_13257_2020
3 SN,J
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.13257 OF 2020
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by setting-aside the order issued by the 2nd respondent in imposing the penalty of stoppage of one (1) annual grade increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension from 12.07.2006 to 20.07.2008 as leave to which the petitioner is eligible by indicating the punishment in the show cause notice even before communication of disagreement factors vide Memo. No.CGM(HRD)/GM(Adm)/AS/DC.I/PO (DC. I)/341-C1/06 dated 19.07.2014 though the enquiry officer has held that the charges are not proved and the related appellate/revisional/review orders issued by the 3rd respondent vide Memo. No.CGM (HRD)/GM (IR, L & Adm)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)341-C1/06 dated 10.10.2014, Memo. No.CGM (HRD)/GM (IR. L & WP_13257_2020 4 SN,J Adm)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341-C1/06 dated 20.08.2015 and Memo. No. CGM (HRD)/GM (Per)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341-C1/06, dated 06.05.2020 modifying the punishment to that of without effect besides treating the period of suspension as on leave to which the petitioner is eligible, as being arbitrary, illegal, erroneous, vitiated by subject bias, based on no evidence, opposed to principles of natural justice and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to hold that the petitioner is entitled to have his case considered and be notionally promoted as Divisional Engineer with effect from the date of promotion of the 5th respondent with all consequential benefits and also be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the interest of justice.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer w.e.f 11.08.1991 in the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board and was later promoted as Assistant Divisional Engineer w.e.f 31.07.1999.
b) While working as such, the petitioner was arrested in connection with a disproportionate assets case registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau in Crime No. 14/ACB-HRD/06 and hence, he was placed under suspension w.e.f 12.07.2006 and later reinstated into service w.e.f. 20.08.2008. While the WP_13257_2020 5 SN,J petitioner was under suspension, the authorities have effected promotions, during the year 2007, to the posts Divisional Engineer and the case of the petitioner was ignored on the ground that he was under suspension. Consequent to the reinstatement, the petitioner was accorded promotion as Divisional Engineer in the year 2009 and he was working as such till date and he is fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of superintending Engineer basing on the placement assigned in the seniority list.
c) The case is registered by ACB and the Government has entrusted the matter to the Commissioner of Inquiries, as there was no material to grant sanction for criminal prosecutions. The 2nd respondent has mechanically reproduced the charges furnished by the ACB instead of independently examining the material on record.
d) The gist of the allegations contained in the charge memo is that the petitioner was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income Rs.1,55,86,779/- and that he has not obtained prior permission while buying properties, that he did not disclose the NRI funds received and that he did not submit any Annual Property Returns. Denying the allegations contained in the charge memo, he had submitted a detailed explanation dated 18.07.2009 inter alia stating that the petitioner has regularly WP_13257_2020 6 SN,J submitted Annual Property Returns, that there is no provision in the rules mandating the employee to disclose receipt of NRI funds.
e) The Commissioner of Inquiries has conducted an elaborate enquiry and finally submitted report on 29.07.2011 holding that the charges are not proved. Though the report was submitted as early as in the month of July 2011, the respondents took more than two and half years to initiate further disciplinary proceedings. The 2nd respondent has concluded to impose the punishment of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension period from 12.07.2006 to 20.08.2008 as leave to which the petitioner is eligible.
f) A perusal of the contents of the above order dated 19.07.2014 would disclose that the 2nd respondent has omitted reasons for not accepting the petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice.
g) The petitioner invoked the remedy of Appeal dated 02.08.2014 before the 3rd respondent. The same was rejected vide Memo No. CGM (HRD)/GM (IR, L & Adm)/AS(DC)PO (DC.I)341-C1/06, dated 10.10.2014. The 3rd respondent too, has omitted to assign any reason for rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has modified the punishment to that of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect WP_13257_2020 7 SN,J vide Memo No. CGM (HRD)/GM (IR. L & Adm)/AS(DC)PO (DC.I)/341-C1/06 dated 20.08.2015.
h) The petitioner preferred a Review Petition inter alia stating that suspension period ought to have been treated as on duty, that several individuals who were facing disciplinary proceedings are granted promotions, and that his juniors would march over him in the matter of promotions. Prior to framing charges, the petitioner approached the High Court as his case was not considered for promotion and thereafter he was promoted as Divisional Engineer w.e.f. 23.10.2009 and nine of his juniors got promotion in the interregnum. However, the same was rejected vide memo No. CGM (HRD)/GM (Per)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341- C1/06, dated 06.05.2020. Therefore, this petition is filed.
4. The counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the following judgments and prayed for allowing the writ petition :
a) Judgment dated 17.12.2003 passed in W.P.No.18519 of 2003 reported in 2004 (4) ALT 561 in Syed Hussain Aga v. Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Hyderabad (Urban District & Others) in particular Paras 12 and 13 on the point that if a notice discloses that a decision adverse to the interest of an individual has already been taken and the individual is required to show cause without indicating any WP_13257_2020 8 SN,J particular aspect such an exercise cannot be permitted to be undertaken.
b) Judgment dated 22.12.1988 reported in Civil Appeal Nos.3212, 3214 and 3518 of 1979 in (AIR 1989 SC 568) H.L.Trehan & Others vs. Union of India & Others, in particular, para 11 on the point that any arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power prejudicially effecting the existing conditions of service of a Government servant will offend against the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
5. The counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, in brief is as follows:
a) The DISCOM Board out rightly rejected the review petition dated 02.03.2020 of the petitioner. The petitioner having kept quite after rejection of the appeal by the DISCOM Board vide Memo dated 10.10.2014 and having preferred 2nd appeal which in fact is not maintainable and having kept quite after modification of the punishment order dated 20.08.2015 is estopped from filing review petition dated 20.03.2020 and also estopped from filing the present writ petition.
b) There is no provision in the Rules and Regulations of the 1st respondent to entertain any revision petition against the orders of the appellate authority. However, the respondent authority entertained the revision petition of the petitioner WP_13257_2020 9 SN,J exercising the powers of revision. In such view, the grounds raised by the petitioner that the 2nd and 3rd respondents having modified the punishment ought to have treated the period of suspension as on duty for all purposes instead of leave to which the petitioner is eligible, is untenable and against the service regulations. The Apex Court in catena of decisions held that an employee even after getting acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically become entitled to the consequential benefits. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent referred to all the judgments as explained in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 and in particular relied upon the following judgments and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition:
a) The Judgment dated 28.02.1997 in (1997 3 SCC 636) Krishnakanth Raghunath Bibhavnekar v State of Maharashtra and Others.
b) The Judgment dated 28.10.1996 in (1996(11) SCC
603) Ranchoodi Chaturji Thakore Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Gujarath Electricity Board).
c) The of Judgment dated 03.11.1993 in (AIR 1994 SC
552) The Management of Reserve Bank of India Vs. Shri Bhopal Singh Panchal.
WP_13257_2020
10 SN,J
PERUSED THE RECORD :
7. The counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 at 3.17 and Para 4(c), as under :
"3.17 It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner had no right under law to file Review Petitions after disposal of the Appeal by order vide Memo.No. CGM(HRD)/GM(IR, L &Adm)/AS(DC)/ PO(DC.I)/341-C1/06, dated 10.10.2014. Therefore the rejection of the 2nd Review Petition vide Memo.No. CGM(HRD)/GM(Per)/AS(DC)/PO(DC.I)/341-C1/06, dt.06.05.2020 does not create any cause of action to the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 19-07-2014 imposing punishment of Stoppage one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. The order in Appeal dated 10-10-2014 confirming the aforementioned punishment and the order in Review Petition dated 20-08-2015 modifying the punishment from Stoppage one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, to that of Stoppage one annual grade increment without cumulative effect in lump sum have become final.
4.c. However, his name will be examined for promotion to the cadre of Superintending Engineer whenever his name comes up in Seniority.
8. The inquiry report of the Inquiry Authority, Commissioner of Inquiry dated 29.07.2011 relating to charges leveled against the petitioner and the conclusion arrived at is as follows :
CHARGE No.I : The D.A. has stated that the charged officer acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income worth Rs.1,55,86,779/- while working in various capacities by corrupt and dubious means. FINDING ARRIVED AT : I hold that charge I against the Charged Officer is not substantiated.
WP_13257_2020
11 SN,J
CHARGE No.II & IV : are linked together, charge II is that Charged Officer acquired movable and immovable properties in his name and in the names of his family members without obtaining prior sanction from the Competent Authorities and not informed to the Department. Charge IV is that the Charged Officer failed to submit Annual Property Returns to the Department from the date of his joining.
FINDING ARRIVED AT : I hold that charge II and Charge IV against the Charged Officer are not substantiated.
CHARGE No. III : Relates to the Charged Officer and his wife received foreign remittance amounting to Rs.75,65,065/- by way of bank transactions into their bank accounts.
FINDING ARRIVED AT : I hold that Charge III against the Charged Officer is not substantiated.
9. A bare perusal of the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner vide Memo dated 20.06.2014, paras 4, 5 & 6 read as under :
"4. The undersigned has carefully examined the enquiry report forwarded by the Principal Secretary to Government, Energy Department with reference to the charges framed against Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, ExADE, his explanation to the charge sheet and findings of the Inquiry Authority thereon and observed that regarding Charge.II & IV, Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, ExADE (Now DE/M&P/Medak) has failed to submit the Annual Property Returns which he alleged to have submitted to department. The Charged Officer has submitted Annual Property Returns and enclosed the copies of Statements of properties for the years 1/1/2000 to 31/12/05 though he was appointed on regular basis w.e.f. 11.08.1992, appears to have been submitted on 17.03.2006 in his written submission to the Commissioner of Inquiries, is not received in this office. As per the statements, he has submitted the property returns for the whole 5 years of period i.e. from the calendar years 2000-2005 at a time instead of submitting every calendar year which attracts the Rule 5 of Possession of Properties of APSEB (Revised) Conduct WP_13257_2020 12 SN,J Regulations as adopted by the APCPDCL. The Charged Officer has submitted his Consolidated Annual Property Return from 01.01.1995 to 30.06.2010 which is received through SE/O/Medak vide letter dt. 03.07.2010. Hence come to the provisional conclusion to award the punishment of "Stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08 AN as leave to which he is eligible" against Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex. ADE/0/ Greenlands (Now Divisional Engineer/O&M.II/ Corporate Office/APCPDCL for the above said lapses on his part.
5. A copy of the enquiry report is enclosed herewith.
6. Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Divisional Engineer is therefore directed to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt of this memo as to why the punishment proposed in para 4 above should not be imposed against him for the charge held proved against him.
10. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 19.07.2014 of the 2nd Respondent herein, paras 6, 7 and 8 read as under :
"6. The undersigned has carefully examined the explanation submitted by Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy. Ex.ADE (Now Divisional Engineer) with reference to the material available on record and decided to confirm the punishment proposed in the show cause notice i.e. ""Stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08 AN as leave to which he is eligible" against Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Divisional Engineer.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered that one annual grade increment of Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex. Assistant Divisional WP_13257_2020 13 SN,J Engineer/O/Green lands (Now Divisional Engineer/O&M/ Corporate Office shall be stopped with cumulative effect".
8. He is informed that under Regulation 18 of APSEB Employees Discipline and Appeal Regulations as adopted by APCPDCL one Appeal lies with the DISCOM Board /CPDCL against these orders within 3 months from the date of receipt of the orders, if the charged officer proposes to Appeal.
11. A bare perusal of the impugned Memo dated 10.10.2014 of the 2nd Respondent herein, paras 8 & 9 read as under :
"8. The appeal preferred by Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex- ADE/O/Green Lands (Now DE/O&M-II/Corporate Office) has been carefully examined by the Discom Board in its meeting held on 23.09.2014 and "resolved that the appeal preferred by Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex-ADE/O/Green Lands (Now DE/O&M- II/ Corporate Office) against the final orders issued to him awarding the punishment of "Stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension from 12.07.2006 FN to 20.08.2008 AN as leave to which he is eligible" be and is hereby rejected".
9. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex ADE/O/Green Lands (Now DE/O&M-II/Corporate Office) against the final orders is hereby rejected.
12. A bare perusal of the impugned Memo dated 20.08.2015 of the 2nd Respondent herein, paras 5 & 6 read as under :
"5. The appeal preferred by Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex. Assistant Divisional Engineer (Now DE has been carefully examined by the Discom Board in its meeting held on 06.08.2015 and "resolved that appeal preferred by Sri WP_13257_2020 14 SN,J B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex.ADE/O/Greenlands (Now DE/O&M. II/Corporate Office) against the final orders issued to him awarding the punishment of "Stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08 AN as leave to which he is eligible for his gross negligence and dereliction of duties towards non-submission of annual property returns is considered and the punishment was modified to "Stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect" besides treating the period of suspension from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08 AN as leave to which he is eligible" be and is hereby approved".
6. Accordingly, one annual grade increment of Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex. Assistant Divisional Engineer/O/Greenlands (Now DE/D&M.II/ Corporate Office) shall be stopped without cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08 AN as leave to which he is eligible.
13. A bare perusal of the impugned Memo dated 06.05.2020 of the 2nd Respondent herein rejecting the review petition submitted by the Petitioner, para 5 reads as under :
"5. The Review Petition submitted by Sri B.Sanjeev Reddy, Ex ADE/O/Green Lands (Now DE/Op/Mahaboobnagar) has been placed before the Discom Board. In its meeting held on 27.03.2020, the Discom Board has examined the Review Petition and has resolved that, Review petition submitted by Sri B.Sanjeeva Reddy, Ex-ADE/O/Green Lands (Now DE/ Op/Mahaboobnagar) against the appeal consideration orders issued to him duly awarding the punishment of "Stoppage one annual grade increment without cumulative effect" besides treating the period of suspension from 12.07.06 FN to 20.08.08 AN as leave to which he is eligible" is rejected.
WP_13257_2020
15 SN,J
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
14. A bare perusal of the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Authority, Commissioner of Inquiry dated 29.07.2011 clearly indicates that all the four charges leveled against the petitioner were held as not substantiated. However, the petitioner was issued Show Cause Notice dated 20.06.2014 after a period of more than two and half years. A bare perusal of the show cause notice dated 20.06.2014 issued by the 2nd Respondent herein clearly indicates that even before an explanation is called for from the petitioner, the 2nd Respondent has provisionally concluded to impose the punishment of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension from 12.07.2006 to 20.08.2008 as Leave. The same indicates that the 2nd Respondent has pre-judged and pre-determined the issue even before the submission of explanation by the petitioner to the show cause notice and the same would amount to post-
decisional hearing.
15. A bare perusal of the consequential proceedings impugned in the present Writ Petition dated 10.10.2014, clearly indicates that except extracting the charges and narration of the case of the petitioner no reasons are WP_13257_2020 16 SN,J assigned at all by the 2nd Respondent in rejecting the Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the final orders passed against the petitioner.
16. A bare perusal of the consequential impugned Memo. No.CGM (HRD)/GM (IR. L & Adm)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341-C1/06, dated 20.08.2015 indicates that the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension from 12.07.2006 forenoon to 20.08.2008 afternoon as leave to which he is eligible as having been modified to punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect besides treating the suspension from 12.07.2006 forenoon to 20.08.2008 afternoon as leave to which he is eligible.
17. A bare perusal of the consequential impugned proceedings dated 06.05.2020 indicates that the review petition submitted by the petitioner as having been rejected by the 2nd respondent without assigning any reasons.
18. The Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2009 (2) SCC 570 in Rup Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Others, dated 19.12.2008 held that the order of the Disciplinary Authority and also the Appellate Authority WP_13257_2020 17 SN,J entails civil consequences and hence, the orders must be based on recorded reasons. At para 23 of the said judgment, it is observed as under :
Para 23 :
Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned.
The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.
19. The Apex Court in Judgment reported in 2010 (13) SCC 427 in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Others, decided on 29.10.2010 in C.A. No.9489/2010 at paras 31, 32, 33, and 34, observed as under :
"31. It is of course true that the show cause notice cannot be read hyper-technically and it is well settled that it is to be read reasonably. But one thing is clear that while reading a show- cause notice the person who is subject to it must get an impression that he will get an effective opportunity to rebut the allegations contained in the show cause notice and prove his innocence. If on a reasonable reading of a show-cause notice a person of ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his reply to the show cause notice will be an empty ceremony and he will merely knock his head against the impenetrable wall of prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice does not commence a fair procedure especially when it is issued in a quasi- judicial proceeding under a statutory regulation which promises to give the person proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of defence.
WP_13257_2020
18 SN,J
32. Therefore, while issuing a show-cause notice, the authorities must take care to manifestly keep an open mind as they are to act fairly in adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the person proceeded against and specially when he has the power to take a punitive step against the person after giving him a show cause notice.
33. The principle that justice must not only be done but it must eminently appear to be done as well is equally applicable to quasi judicial proceeding if such a proceeding has to inspire confidence in the mind of those who are subject to it.
34. A somewhat similar observation was made by this Court in the case of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited v. Girja Shankar Pant & others, (2001) 1 SCC 182. In that case, this court was dealing with a show cause notice cum charge-sheet issued to an employee. While dealing with the same, this Court in paragraph 25 (page 198 of the report) by referring to the language in the show cause notice observed as follows:
"25. Upon consideration of the language in the show- cause notice-cum-charge-sheet, it has been very strongly contended that it is clear that the Officer concerned has a mindset even at the stage of framing of charges and we also do find some justification in such a submission since the chain is otherwise complete."
After paragraph 25, this Court discussed in detail the emerging law of bias in different jurisdictions and ultimately held in paragraph 35 (page 201 of the report), the true test of bias is:
"35. The test, therefore, is as to whether a mere apprehension of bias or there being a real danger of bias and it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom -- in the event however the conclusion is otherwise inescapable that there is existing a real danger of bias, the administrative action cannot be sustained:"
20. This Court opines that the judgments relied upon by the counsel to the respondent do not apply to the facts of the present case and a bare perusal of all the consequential orders clearly indicate non application of mind by the Officers concerned as no reasons are WP_13257_2020 19 SN,J assigned in rejecting the petitioner's Appeal, Review and Revision petitions. Except extracting the contents of the show cause notice, and the grounds raised by the Petitioner, there is neither any discussion nor any finding or conclusion arrived at nor any reasons assigned in rejecting the petitioner's Appeal, Review and Revision petitions. This Court also opines that the 2nd respondent who acted as a punishing authority also participated in the Appeal/Revision/ Review process and he is the signatory to the same. A bare perusal of the enquiry report dated 29.07.2011 clearly indicates that none of the charges alleged against the petitioner had been substantiated. In the absence of any evidence to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner, issuance of show cause notice dated 20.06.2014 after nearly more than two and half years, pre-determining the issue by indicating the proposed punishment in the said show cause notice even before receiving any explanation from the petitioner to the said show cause notice dated 20.06.2014 is clearly in violation of the principle that "Justice must not only be done, but it must eminently appear to be done as well".
WP_13257_2020
20 SN,J
21. This Court is of firm opinion that in the instant case the alleged guilt of the petitioner has been pre-judged at the stage of show cause notice itself.
22. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court referred to and extracted above and also the law laid down in the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner and further taking into consideration the fact that the respondent authority dealt with the subject issue as a routine administrative matter, whereas it is a quasi judicial matter involving service career of the petitioner and the competent authority was required to pass speaking orders by giving reasons for imposing the penalty after considering the inquiry report, representation of the petitioner and other material concerning disciplinary proceedings on record, the respondent authority failed to do so and pre-judged the issue at the stage of issuance of show cause notice itself. This Court opines that all the other impugned orders in the present writ petition are not speaking orders giving reasons. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for and the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent Memo. No.CGM(HRD)/GM(Adm)/AS/DC.I/PO (DC. I)/341-C1/06, dated 19.07.2014, and the WP_13257_2020 21 SN,J consequential orders vide Memo. No.CGM (HRD)/GM (IR, L & Adm)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)341-C1/06, dated 10.10.2014, Memo dated 20.08.2015 and Memo. No. CGM (HRD)/GM (Per)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341-C1/06, dated 06.05.2020 are set aside as being unreasoned, routine and without application of mind and the respondents are further directed to consider the case of the petitioner to be notionally promoted as Divisional Engineer with effect from the date of promotion of the 5th Respondent with all consequential benefits including promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer since it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's name will be examined for promotion to the cadre of Superintending Engineer whenever the petitioner's name comes up in seniority, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law duly communicating the said decision to the Petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 25.11.2022 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o kvrm