B. Radha Devi, vs The District Collector Sw,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2149 AP

                                        1




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                 WRIT PETITION No.10780 of 2021
ORDER:

The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

"......to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of HWO Gr-I, on the ground of Pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide Rc.No.A1/89/2018, dt:01.08.2019, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of 14&16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of HWO Gr-I, strictly as per his seniority, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him, from the date of his eligibility, with all service and monetary benefits, as per the Law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.26954/2009 dt:02.03.2010 reported in 2010 (4) ALT 374 (DB) and also as per the ratio of the orders in W.P.No.1707/2020 and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Sri P. Amarender, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner argues that the petitioner is being denied

promotion for the post of HWO Gr.I on the purported ground

that there are some charges pending against her. It is

submitted that the charge memo was issued to the petitioner

in August, 2019, to which a detailed reply, dated 13.09.2019,

was given but there isno progress in the disciplinary enquiry

from then till date. It is submitted that the delay in

concluding the enquiry is contrary to the settled law on the

subject, including State of Andhra Pradesh v N. Radha

Krishna1 and Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal

Secretary, Revenue Department and another v A.

Rajeswara Reddy, Deputy Collector, presently on

deputation as Deputy Administrator at Govt. Pleaders

Office, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad2;and the decisions of

the learned Single Judge of this Court, which are filed as

material papers. Learned counsel argues that as per

G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, strict time frames are

given to complete disciplinary proceedings within three

months (Simple cases) and six months (complex cases). In

the case on hand he submits that from 2019 there is no

progress whatsoever. Hence, he prays for an order.

Learned Government Pleader for Services-III on the

other hand argues that the petitioner is not entitled to any

relief. He argues that the charges are on the basis of Radio

Message from the Anti-Corruption Bureau and that therefore

the charges are serious. According to him, merely on the

ground of delay the entire enquiry cannot be doubted and

promotion granted to the petitioner. He argues that in A.

Jalender Reddy v State of Telangana3, a learned Single

Judge considered all these aspects, suspension, promotions

etc., and directed that till the conclusion of the departmental

proceedings, the parties are not entitled to promotions and

(1998) 4 SCC 154

2010 (4) ALT 374 (DB)

Manu/AP/0051/2017=2017 (4) ALT 225 = 2017 (4) ALD 538

that their entitlement to promotion should only be reviewed

on the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.

This Court after considering the submissions made

notices that the issue of delay in departmental proceedings is

considered in A. Jalender Reddycase (3 supra). However,

learned single Judge while dealing with that case held that

there cannot be a hard and fast rule to quash every

disciplinary proceeding on the ground of delay. Even in the

Division Bench judgment that is referred to and filed as

material paper (A.Rajeswar Reddy case 2 supra), this Court

notices that O.A.No.6083 of 2009 was filed before the

Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed by the Tribunal

with a direction to consider the petitioner's case therein for

promotion without reference to the disciplinary proceedings.

This order passed by the Tribunal was challenged and the

D.B. did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

The D.B. also directed that the disciplinary proceedings shall

be concluded on their own merits within two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of the order. Similarly, in

W.P.No.1218 of 2010 also an order was passed by the learned

single Judge to the similar effect. The orders passed in

W.P.No.15726 and 15696 of 2020 were also to the same

effect.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that in view of the

order passed by the Division Bench,and other coordinate

Benches there shall be a direction to the respondents to

consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to HWO Gr.I

in line with the applicable rules and regulations, seniority

etc., without taking into consideration the pendency of the

disciplinary proceedings. A direction is also issued to the

respondents to complete the disciplinary proceedings within a

period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. Petitioner should also cooperate in the enquiry. It

is also made clear that the promotion that is granted shall be

subject to the result of the enquiry.

With the above observations the Writ Petition is

allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending,

if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________ D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU, J Date:25.06.2021.

Ssv