Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y Murali Krishna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 November, 2024
APHC010485602024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 25098/2024
Between:
1. Y MURALI KRISHNA, S/O Y. CH. BHUSANNA, AGED 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R AND B) R AND B
DIVISION NELLORE, R/O H.NO. 27-1-468, BALAJI NAGAR, BESIDE
SWAMY CLASS SCHOOL, NELLORE-524001.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, TR AND B DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF ADMN, ROADS AND BUILDINGS
DEPARTMENT VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be
pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not considering
the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending
Engineer in (R and B) Department, on mere pendency of Charge Memo Vide
G.O.Rt.No. 80 TR and B (VIG.R and B) Department, dated. 24-03-2022,
issued by the 1st respondent basing on the Report of the 2nd respondent DT.
Page 2 of 5
SRS,J
W.P.No.25098 of 2024
17-12-2021, denial of promotion is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of
principles of Natural Justice, consequently direct the respondents to consider
the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending
Engineer without reference to the pending Charge dated. 24-03-2022, since,
against the same charges, his Co-deliquent was promoted to the post of EE
(R and B) basing on the directions of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.No.
23762 of 2023, dated. 19-9-2023 which were granted by duly following the
reported judgment of the Division Bench Govt, of A.P. rep by its Principal
Secretary Revenue Department Vs. A. Rajeswara Reddy and G.O.Ms.No.
679, dated. 1-11-2008 and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the
petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (R and B)
Department in the existing vacancy, without referring the pendency of
G.O.Rt.No. 80 TR and B Department Dated; 24-03-2022, in terms of similar
orders passed in W.P.No. 23762 of 2023, dated; 19-9-2023, pending disposal
of the above writ petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
:: ORDER :
:
Heard Sri Ch.Satya Dev Naidu, learned counsel representing
Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherla Kota, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services
appeared for the respondents.
SRS,J
2. A charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.80, dated 24.03.2022 (Ex.P1) was
issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation vide
Ex.P3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is
entitled to be promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. The case of
the petitioner has not been considered due to pendency of aforementioned
charge memo. He also would submit that the other employee filed
W.P.No.23762 of 2023, wherein the learned Single Judge disposed of the
same on 19.09.2023, directing the respondent authorities therein to consider
the case of the petitioner therein for promotion to the post of Executive
Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would submit that
the respondent authorities will consider the case of the petitioner in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated
10.06.1999.
5. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration
(Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, and thereafter G.O.Ms.No.91
General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, fixing timelines
to conclude the inquiry within three months in case of simple and six months
in case of complicated. In the case at hand, the respondent authorities flouted
the timelines fixed in the G.Os. For the fault on the part of the disciplinary
authority, the petitioner shall not be penalized.
6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is
disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned
counsel, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the
petitioner for promotion, if the petitioner is in the zone of consideration, without
SRS,J
reference to the aforementioned charge memo. There shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date: 06.11.2024
TVN
SRS,J
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 25098 of 2024
Dated: 06.11.2024
TVN
