Md. Rehaman Ali, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2024 Latest Caselaw 6822 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Md. Rehaman Ali, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 7 August, 2024

APHC010339552024
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                                  [3331]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

               WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                     PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

                        WRIT PETITION NO: 17246/2024

Between:

Md. Rehaman Ali,                                                      ...PETITIONER

                                        AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and two others.                      ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. EATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I

2. GP FOR SERVICES II

The Court made the following ORDER:

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"...declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.482, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 29.06.2022 and consequential memo dated 03.01.2023 as illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and discrimination and also

SRS,J Wp_17246_2024

contrary to the law and to set aside the impugned charge memo issued vide G.O.Rt.No.482, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 29.06.2022 along with memo dated 03.01.2023 by declaring that the petitioner herein is entitled for promotion as Royalty Inspector as per the final seniority list prepared vide memo No.Proc.No.8349/E1/2014, dated 09.06.2022 and may pass such other order or orders..."

2. Heard Sri E.Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for

the respondents 1 to 3.

3. A Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.482, Revenue (Vigilance-II)

Department, dated 29.06.2022 was issued to the petitioner (Ex.P.2) on the

ground that the petitioner exhibited lack of integrity, devotion to the duty and

thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(2) & 4(1) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services

(Conduct) Rules, 1964 r/w Rule 9 of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules,

1980. The petitioner submitted written statement (Ex.P.3) dated 12.01.2023.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the

charge memo is pending, the respondent authorities are not considering, the

petitioner's case, for the promotion though he is eligible. Thus, he would urge

that the respondents shall consider the case for promotion in terms of Rule

5(b)(2) of the A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules 1991amd to complete the inquiry in

terms of G.O.Ms.No. 91 dated 12.09.2022.

SRS,J Wp_17246_2024

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that

the respondent authorities will complete the inquiry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91

General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. He would

also submit that the petitioner's case will be considered in terms of Rule

5(2)(b) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for

short "the Rules').

6. As seen from the material, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner

on 29.06.2022 on the ground that the petitioner was absent on 03.06.2016

when a surprise check was conducted by ACB officials. Earlier also, another

charge memo was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.466, dated 03.04.2019 on the

ground that the petitioner was absent on 12.03.2016.

In respect of the charge memo issued vide G.O.Rt.No.466, learned

counsel for the petitioner would submit that the inquiry was completed,

however, the respondent authorities are yet to pass orders. In respect of the

incident in the year 2016, charge memo was issued after six years i.e. on

29.06.2022. Even after lapse of two years, the inquiry is not commenced

despite the fact that an Inquiry Officer is appointed.

7. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 22.09.2022 fixing a

definite time frame to complete the inquiry. In simple cases, inquiry shall be

SRS,J Wp_17246_2024

completed in three months and in complicated cases, inquiry shall be

completed in six months.

8. In Government of A.P., vs. A.Rajeswara Reddy1, it was held that the

disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of Government are to

be completed within three months in simple cases and in six months in case of

complicated cases, as per the policy decision taken by the Government in

G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated

01.11.2008. The Division Bench also directed the concerned Authorities to

consider the case of the employee for promotion without reference to the

pending disciplinary proceedings, while upholding the order of the

Administrative Tribunal.

9. Case at hand, as referred to supra, though the disciplinary proceedings

were initiated on 29.06.2022, inquiry is not concluded so far.

10. Given the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the

judgment referred to supra, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the consent of

learned counsel on either side at the admission stage, directing the

respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for promotion without

reference to disciplinary proceedings initiated vide G.O.Rt.No.482, dated

2010(4) ALT 374 (DB)

SRS,J Wp_17246_2024

29.06.2022, if the petitioner possesses other requisite qualifications, as per

law. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

Dated 07.08.2024 KA

SRS,J Wp_17246_2024

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 17246/2024 Dated 07.08.2024 KA