N.Siva Rama Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6192 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6192 AP
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

N.Siva Rama Prasad vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 September, 2022

        THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

                    WRIT PETITION No.28416 OF 2022

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 declare the action of the respondents in denied to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Transport Commissioner on mere pendency of reference Letters (1) Letter No.509/Vig .Tr/1/2015-1 Dated 16.04.2015 and (2) letter No RTB01-TRANSOCTRA(SCR)/8/2020- VIG-TR (1175612), Dated 13.07.2020 in the absence of any valid Charge Sheet as on today as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary the existing Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.66 GAD (SERVICERS.C) Department, dated 30.01.1991, consequently direct the respondents herein to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Transport Commissioner without reference to the pendency of Reference Letters to TDP dated 16.04.2015 and 13.07.2020 in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.66 GAD Department, Dated 30.01.1991 in the existing vacancy, in terms of similar orders passed W.P.No.25129 of 2022, dt 11.08.2022 and W.P.No.5981 of 2021, dated 16.03.2021 and pass such other orders...."

2. Heard Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherla Kota, learned

counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for

Roads and Buildings for the respondents.

3. The precise case of the petitioner is that he is working as

Deputy Transport Commissioner, Anantapuramu and he is eligible

and qualified person for promotion for Joint Transport

Commissioner in the Transport Department. The petitioner made

representation dated 28.07.2022 to the respondents requesting to

consider his case for promotion to the post of Joint Transport

Commissioner, as no charges have been framed and pending

against him. While the matter stood thus on 28.06.2013 a sudden

check by ACB authorities on the office of the DTC, Kurnool, while

he was working as Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kurnool and

in the said incident the Government have placed 13 officials

including the petitioner before the Tribunal for Disciplinary

proceedings (TDP) vide letter dated 16.04.2015, since then it is

kept pending without any progress. The name of the petitioner is

shown at Sl.No.4 in the existing panel list of 2021-22 and

unfortunately the petitioner's candidature has been deferred in the

DPC held on 30.08.2022, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the

writ petition came to be filed.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings for the

respondents vehemently opposed to grant relief as claimed in the

writ petition and requested to dismiss the same.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

since 2015 the Disciplinary Proceedings before the Tribunal is kept

pending without any progress and no charges pending as on the

date of submission representation on 28.07.2022. Later the

respondents launched the alleged check conducted by the ACB

authorities on 28.06.2013 and after two years, disciplinary

proceedings was issued dated 16.04.2015 against the petitioner

and others, since then it is kept pending. Therefore after long lapse

of several years, the respondent authorities did not conclude the

proceedings issued against the petitioner and now denied to

consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post

of Joint Transport Commissioner on the ground of pendency of

disciplinary proceedings is highly illegal and arbitrary.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the

decision of this Court in W.P.No. 5981 of 2021, dated 16.03.2021,

wherein similar issue is cropped up, by following the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India Vs. Anil

Kumar Sarkar"1 wherein it was held as follows:

"However, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings contended that promotion is not a matter of right and he is entitled for consideration for promotion. There is no dispute with regard to the contention of the Government Pleader and this court is not inclined to issue a direction to promote the petitioner. But, this court can issue a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher cadre subject to satisfying the requirement notwithstanding the surprise check report submitted by ACB, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991".