Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mulugu Venkata Ramana vs The State Of Ap on 2 August, 2024
1
APHC010424112022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3310]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 25988/2022
Between:
Mulugu Venkata Ramana ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K R SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES IV
The Court made the following Order:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"...issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of
Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents
in not considering the case of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Manager Category 3 which
is a nonselection post on account of pendency of
departmental enquiry arising out of charge memo
issued by the 1 St respondent vide G.O.Rt No 801
Municipal Administration and Urban Development
(Vig.I.1) Department dated 14.11.2017 as illegal
arbitrary unjust violation of Rule 5(b) of AP State and
Sub-Ordinate Service Rules AP High Court Division
Bench Judgment in WP No 5219/2019 dated
10.02.2021 G.O.Ms. No. 679 dated 01.11.2008 and
consequentially direct the respondents to consider
the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of
Manger Category 3 without reference to the charge
issued by the Pt respondent vide G.O.Rt.No. 801
Municipal Administration and Urban Development
(Vig.I.1) Department dated 14.11.2017 in terms of
Rule 5(b) of AP State and Sub-Ordinate Service
Rules by extending the benefit of AP High Court
Division Bench Judgment in WP No 5219/2019 dated
10.02.2021 and pass......."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as typist on 26.04.1999 and was promoted as Senior
Assistant on 10.07.2012. The respondents prepared the
Seniority list of eligible Senior Assistants for promotion to the
post of Manager Category 3 and the petitioner was shown serial
No.62. The petitioner is fully eligible and qualified as well as
senior for being promoted to the post of Manager Category 3,
which is a non selection post.
While the matter stood thus, respondent No.1 issued Article
of charges vide G.O.Rt.No.801 Municipal Administration and
Urban Development (Vig.I.1) Department, dated 14.11.2017,
framing 2 charges against the petitioner. The 1 st charge is that
while the petitioner was working as Revenue Inspector Ichapuram
Municipality, failed to implement Government Orders in conducting
auctions of 81 shop rooms whose lease was expired by
31.05.2016 and the 2nd charge is that this action in 1 st charge is in
contravention of Rule 3 APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the
petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges.
Thereafter, respondent No.2 appointed enquiry officer through
G.O.Rt.No.531, dated 21.05.2018, directing to complete the
enquiry in two (2) months and to submit report. However, the
enquiry officer postponed to conduct enquiry on 17.10.2019 i.e.,
after completion of two (2) months stipulated time and the enquiry
is pending even after five (5) years, by the time of filing of the
present writ petition. It is further the case of the petitioner that
though he is eligible for promotion and the respondents not
considering his promotion to non-selection post and considering as
well as promoting his juniors vide proceedings, dated 02.06.2022,
who are at serial numbers 71, 72 and 74 in the seniority list, dated
17.12.2018. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Punjab Vs.Chaman Lal Goyal 1, where in it was directed
to consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to the
charges in the departmental enquiry though they are grave near as
five (5) years lapsed and there is delay in concluding the
departmental enquiry, and in view of the violation of Principle s of
Natural Justice and in breach of Rule 5(b) of AP State and Sub-
Ordinate Service Rules, the petitioner is eligible for promotion.
Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. No counter has been filed by the respondents.
1995 (2) SCC 570
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned
Government Pleader for Services-IV appearing for the
respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inordinate
delay on behalf of the respondents is causing prejudice to the
petitioner and he sought to consider the petitioner's case for
promotion notwithstanding pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Services strenuously
opposed the petitioner and relied upon the Judgment of Division
Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh and
submitted that as far departmental enquiries are concerned, strict
interpretation of timeline is not practicable and permissible. He
sought to canvas that in view of pendency of disciplinary
proceedings against the petitioner, the case of the petitioner
cannot be considered for promotion.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
the learned Government Pleader for Services, there is no dispute
about the fact that the respondent No.1 issued Article of charges
vide G.O.Rt.No.801 Municipal Administration and Urban
Development (Vig.I.1) Department, dated 14.11.2017, framing 2
charges against the petitioner and thereafter, respondent No.2
appointed enquiry officer through G.O.Rt.No.531, dated
21.05.2018, directing to complete the enquiry in two (2) months
and to submit report. Absolutely there is no justifiable reason
forthcoming from the respondents for this inordinate delay. For the
purpose of framing charges itself, the respondents took about five
(5) years. In fact, taking into consideration the plight of the
employees who are facing disciplinary proceedings and the
inordinate delay that was caused, the Government has issued
G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department
dated 01.11.2008, wherein specific directives were given that the
disciplinary cases initiated against the Government employees
shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and the
departmental heads have to review the status of pending
disciplinary cases and submit a report to the Chief Secretary to
the Government. It is also directed that the Competent Authority
after receipt of inquiry report shall conclude the disciplinary
proceedings within 6 months of its initiation and in case of
abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, action
shall be initiated against the concerned inquiring authority.
8. G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department
dated 10.06.1999 was issued particularly with regard to
appointment by Promotion/Transfer to higher categories of
employees who are facing disciplinary cases. The Government has
issued certain guidelines with regard to consideration of
Government servants against whom disciplinary or Court
proceedings are pending or whose conduct is under investigation
for promotion to next higher categories.
9. In this case, the contention of the respondents that the case
being a departmental enquiry, timeline prescribed in the said
G.Os is not applicable is untenable. If the enquiry is conducted after
inordinate delay, it would be prejudicial to the delinquent officer as
the task of proving of charges will become difficult. It is not
possible to remember the minute details after long lapse of time.
Hence, it will definitely cause prejudice to the delinquent employee.
This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be
punished for the fault of respondents by denying his promotion
solely on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
10. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case
of the petitioner for promotion as and when promotions are effected
without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending against
the petitioner. Further, the respondents are directed to complete
disciplinary enquiry pending against the petitioner as expeditiously
as possible.
11. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J
Date: 22.07.2024
Vnb
HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
Date: 02.08.2024
Vnb
