Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ambati Anantha Lakshmi, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 29 January, 2021
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.1592 OF 2021
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"......pleased to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of
Mandamus in declaring the action of the respondents in
deferring the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of
Sub Registrar Grade I for the panel year of 2020-2021 on the
ground of pendency of departmental enquiry arising out of
Charge Memo No.X/126/2013 dated 29.01.2014, as illegal,
arbitrary, unjust, violative of G.O.Ms.No.679 General
Administration (Services-C) Department Dated 01.11.2008, and
consequentially direct the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Registrar Grade
I, without reference to Charge Memo No.X/126/2013, dated
29.01.2014, taking into consideration the judgments of the
Supreme Court as well as this Honorable High Court and
pass....."
2. The petitioner is working as Sub Registrar Grade-II and a
charge memo was issued against this petitioner for misconduct on
29.1.2014 and thereafter, enquiry was completed and in
pursuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted a
written representation on 16.1.2021 but no final order is passed.
Therefore, the inaction of the respondents is contrary to
G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department,
dated 01.11.2008, and requested to issue a direction to consider
the candidature of this petitioner for promotion to the next higher
category i.e., Sub Registrar Grade-I.
3. During hearing, Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the
petitioner, while reiterating the contentions urged in the petition,
drawn the attention of this Court to the judgments of the Apex
Court in State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lal Goyal1 and
Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and another
[Civil Appeal No.958 of 2010]. Based on these principles, he
requested to issue a direction to consider the case of this petitioner
to the next higher category without reference to Charge Memo,
dated 29.1.2014.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services - I appearing for
the respondents submitted that the petitioner sought some
information by letter, dated 23.5.2018, and the same could not be
furnished, as the Government addressed letters to the concerned
District Registrar, and the same is pending for passing a final
order, on submission of the written representation.
5. Admittedly, the enquiry was completed on 5.5.2018 and
report was submitted to the concerned authority and thereafter, a
show cause notice was issued calling for written representation
from the petitioner. Later, the petitioner addressed a letter, dated
23.5.2018, for furnishing certain information and the respondents
took steps and addressed letters to the concerned District
Registrar to furnish information. However, as per Sri K.R.Srinivas,
learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner herself
approached the concerned Registrar and obtained information and
submitted her written representation on 16.1.2021 and it is
pending for consideration and to pass final orders.
6. No doubt, in State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lal
Goyal's case (1 cited supra), the dispute was non completion of
enquiry for a period of five years six months and sought
1995 (2) SCC 570
quashment of the disciplinary proceedings. However, during
pendency of the writ petition, the enquiry was completed and
report was submitted but no final order was passed. Taking into
consideration of completion of enquiry, in para No.12 of the
judgment, the Supreme Court issued the following direction:
"12. The principles to be borne in mind in this behalf have
been set out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in
A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak & Anr. (1992 (1) S.C.C.225). Though
the said case pertained to criminal prosecution, the principles
enunciated therein are broadly applicable to a plea of delay in
taking the disciplinary proceedings as well. In paragraph 86 of
the judgment, this court mentioned the propositions emerging
from the several decisions considered therein and observed
that "ultimately the court has to balance and weigh the several
relevant factors - balancing test or balancing process - and
determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has
been denied in a given case". It has also been held that,
ordinarily speaking, where the court comes to the conclusion
that right to speedy trial of the accused has been infringed, the
charges, or the conviction, as the case may be, will be quashed.
At the same time, it has been observed that that is not the only
course open to the court and that in a given case, the nature of
the offence and other circumstances may be such that
quashing of the proceedings may not be in the interest of
Justice. In such a case, it has been observed, it is open to the
court to make such other appropriate order as it finds just and
equitable in the circumstance of the case."
7. Since the facts of this case are identical with regard to the
completion of enquiry, a similar direction is issued in this petition
directing the respondents to pass final order in case the petitioner
submitted a written representation, as contended by her, on
16.1.2021 within four (4) weeks from today. If no written
representation is submitted, the respondents may pass orders in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at
the stage of admission with the consent of both the parties. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition
shall stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date : 29.1.2021
AMD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No.1592 OF 2021
Date : 29.01.2021
AMD
