This Writ Petition Is Filed vs Mandal Parishad Development ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9889 AP

                                       1




           THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                 WRIT PETITION (A.T) No.452 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed, seeking the following relief:

".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Mandal Parishad Development Officer with all consequential benefits and pass such other orders."

2. Heard Mr. J.R.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader, Services-IV for the

respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is

working as Extension Officer (Panchayat Raj and Rural

Development) since 12.02.2014. While so a criminal case was

registered against the petitioner alleging the petitioner took bribe.

Pursuant to the Judgment of the Additional Special Judge for SPE

and ACB Cases dated 27.11.2002 the 3rd respondent issued

proceedings dated 09.07.2003 dismissing the petitioner from

service. Further the learned Tribunal by its order dated

06.09.2007 dismissed the O.A on the ground that the petitioner

was convicted in a criminal case and as such the authorities are

competent to dismiss the petitioner. The learned Tribunal further

held that in case the criminal appeal is allowed the employee is

entitled for reinstatement. Subsequently this Court allowed the

Criminal Appeal No. 1370 of 2002. In view of the same, the

petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service. Pursuant to the

orders of learned Tribunal the petitioner was reinstated into

service and continuing therein. The petitioner made a

representation to the respondents requesting to consider his case

for promotion to the cadre of E.O (PR & RD) and MPDO on par

with his juniors. On the ground that disciplinary cases were

pending against the petitioner many of the juniors were promoted

to the next higher posts and no official seniority list communicated

to the petitioner, but the petitioner was given only notional

promotion in the category of V.D.O, Grade-I with effect from

25.04.1997. Therefore inaction of the respondents is questioned in

this writ petition.

4. No counter affidavit is filed. During hearing learned

counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the writ

petition. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for the

respondents opposed to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner

on the ground that the petitioner has committed grave misconduct

and irregularities. Therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points that the

respondents issued Charge Memo dated 02.12.2010 against the

petitioner alleging that the petitioner committed grave misconduct

during the period from 14.09.1994 to 27.04.1997. Further the

Criminal Appeal is allowed by this Court dated 22.10.2009 by

setting aside the Judgment of the learned Court below. Therefore

the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as per orders of the

learned Tribunal in O.A by its order dated 4919 of 2003. It is

further contended that the respondents cannot issue a fresh

charge memo once again for the alleged irregularities said to have

been committed by him, when the said allegations were held to be

bad by this Court. The allegation in the Charge Memo relates to

1996-97 and that the respondents cannot issue the Charge Memo

after long elapse of 15 years. Therefore the petitioner filed

O.A.No.6454 of 2011 and the learned Tribunal set aside the

impugned Charge Memo dated 02.12.2010 and directed to accord

all consequential benefits arising thereof. Later the petitioner made

a representation requesting to implement the orders of the learned

Tribunal. Subsequently the respondents have accorded notional

promotion to the post of V.D.O, Grade-I with effect from

25.04.1997, vide proceedings dated 12.02.2016 and further

considered for notional promotion as E.O (PR & RD) with effect

from 12.02.2014 vide proceedings dated 25.02.2016. Inspite of

repeated requests made by the petitioner, the respondents dodging

the matter on flimsy grounds and that this writ petition came to be

filed.

6. The petitioner approached this Court for promotion to the

post of Mandal Parishad Development Officer with all

consequential benefits, as the cases are ended and as per orders of

the learned Tribunal he is entitled for promotion as stated supra.

However it is made clear that the learned Tribunal set aside the

impugned Memo dated 02.12.2010 and directed the respondents

to accord all consequential benefits arising thereof by its order

dated 19.07.2013 in O.A.No.1360 of 2010 and O.A.No.6454 of

2011, wherein the learned Tribunal discussed at length and

passed the order in favour of the petitioner.

7. Under these circumstances, this Court needs no

interference to look in to further aspects in this matter and that

the petitioner is entitled for relief as claimed in the writ petition.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, while directing

the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for

promotion to the post of Mandal Parishad Development Officer

with all consequential benefits, within eight (08) weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

also stand closed.

___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: 28.12.2022.

KK

THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION (AT) No.452 of 2021

Date: 28.12.2022.

KK