Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Constitution Of India Seeking The ... vs A.Rajeswara Reddy on 2 February, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.1893 of 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"........to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the
respondents in deferring petitioner's case for promotion to the post
of Sub-Registrar Grade-I in the Approved List of candidates for
promotion as Sub-Registrar Grade-I for the panel year 2020-21 on
the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry arising out of
charge Memo No.X/190/2014-2, dated 03.12.2018 as illegal,
arbitrary, unjust and violative of G.O.Ms.No.679 General
Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and
consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the
petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-I without
reference to the Charge Memo No.X/190/2014-2, dated
03.12.2018 taking into consideration the judgments of the Supreme
Court as well as this Court."
2. It is the case of petitioner that the Deputy Inspector
General of Registration and Stamps, Eluru Range, Eluru,
issued a Charge Memo dated 03.12.2018 framing 2 charges
against the petitioner. Surprise check proceedings were
conducted on 29.09.2014 in the office of Sub-Registrar,
Tadepalligudem. The gist of the charges is that accepting of
bribe through un-authorized Document/Assistant Document
writers and keeping the bribe amount in the possession of
private persons is misconduct. The 3rd respondent after lapse
of 2 years approximately by memo dated 17.02.2020
communicated the documents annexed to the charge memo.
Immediately, on its receipt, the petitioner submitted his
explanation on 27.02.2020 denying the charges after supply
of all the documents referred in Annexure-IV annexed to the
charge memo. As on today inquiry has not been commenced.
The Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps,
Eluru Range, Eluru, after 4 years 4 months issued a charge
memo dated 03.12.2018 and enquiry is yet to be commenced.
Therefore, delay in initiation of enquiry and completion of
departmental proceedings, for which delay the petitioner has
no role to play, is a grave illegality.
3. On account of delay in completion of the departmental
proceedings in the recent DPC for the panel year 2020-21, the
petitioner denied promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar
Grade-I for no fault of the petitioner. The Government issued
G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008 fixing the outer limit to
complete the departmental proceedings and in the matters of
simple charges, it should be completed within three months
and six months in case of grave charges. Taking into
consideration of said G.O the Division Bench of Combined
High Court in Government of A.P vs. A.Rajeswara Reddy1
directed the respondent to consider the petitioner therein for
promotion without reference to the charge sheet. Following
the said judgment W.P.No.9656/2019 was also allowed by
orders dated 23.07.2019 and similarly W.P.No.11575/2019
was also by order dated 26.08.2019. Hence, the petitioner
2010 (4) ALT 374
requested to direct the respondents to consider his case
stated supra.
4. During the course of hearing, Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned
counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in
the petition and limited his request to consider the
candidature of this petitioner for promotion in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department,
dated 10.06.1999.
5. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Services-I on
instructions fairly submitted that in terms of Clause 5(c) of
G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, the case of the petitioner's
case cannot be considered for promotion to the next higher
cadre and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. Since the request of the petitioner is limited irrespective
of Charge Memo dated 03.12.2018, Eluru Range, Eluru if any
pending enquiry or criminal proceedings are not completed
within two years from the date of initiation of proceedings or
from the date of filing of charge memo, the petitioner is
entitled to claim benefit of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999
subject to the terms and conditions contained in Para 5(c) of
the G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Learned counsel for the
petitioner requested to consider the case of the petitioner in
terms of Para 5(c) of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999.
Similarly, learned Government Pleader for Services-I is also
contending that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated
10.06.1999, the petitioner is not entitled for being considered
for promotion to the next higher cadre.
7. Since the request of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I
is to follow G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, no further
adjudication is necessary and it would suffice to issue a
direction to the respondents to consider the case of this
petitioner for being considered for promotion to the next
higher cadre subject to the conditions contained in
G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, more particularly, keeping
in view of Para 5(c) of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999.
8. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed
of. There shall be no Order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if
any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 02.02.2021
IS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.1893 of 2021
Date: 02-02-2021
IS
