APHC010695102022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 900/2023 Between: 1. Y JAYASRI, JUNIOR ACCOUNTANT, DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE, HINDU, AGED 30 YEARS, R/O NEAR DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE, VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES AND ACCOUNTS, ANDHRA PRADESH, IBRAHIMPATNAM. 3. THE DISTRICT TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY, VIZIANAGARAM 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus, declaring that the impugned Progs. Rc.No.400/A1/2022, dt.17-9-2022 issued by the Respondent no.3 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of india and provisions of AP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 199 land quash the same i.e impugned Progs. Rc.No.400/A1/2022, dt.17-9-2022 issued by the Respondent no.3 and consequently stay all further proceedings in Rc.No.400/A1/2022, dt.17- 9-2022 issued by the Respondent no.3 or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and Justice…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Office Subordinate on compassionate grounds and was allotted to the Treasury Unit, Vizianagaram, vide proceedings dated 12.12.2013 issued by the 4th respondent. Pursuant to the said proceedings, she was posted at the District Treasury, Vizianagaram. Subsequently, her services in the category of Office Subordinate were regularized with effect from 31.12.2013 vide proceedings dated 27.10.2024. Even prior to her appointment as Office Subordinate, the petitioner had joined a degree course through Distance Education at Sri Krishnadevaraya University, and she completed the said degree in the year 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner was temporarily promoted and appointed as Junior Accountant from the category of Office Subordinate vide order dated 01.03.2017, and she was posted as Junior Accountant in the Sub-Treasury, Bobbili. However, as the services of the petitioner were not regularized in the said post and her name was not included in the seniority list, she addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent on 07.07.2018 requesting appropriate action. Since no action was taken, the petitioner approached this court by filing Writ Petition No.5323 of 2022. Surprisingly, after filing the said writ petition, the respondents initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner by issuing the impugned charge memo dated 17.09.2022 along with Annexure-I containing the Articles of Charges, which read as follows: Charge No.1: That Smt. Y. Jayasri, Junior Accountant, District Treasury, Vizianagaram, failed to obtain permission from the competent authority for pursuing studies to acquire a Degree qualification, which is a mandatory requirement under the Government Orders. By doing so, she allegedly violated the prescribed procedure and showed gross negligence in the discharge of her legitimate duties, thereby contravening Rule 3 of the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.2: That the said Smt. Y. Jayasri failed to obtain permission from the competent authority for attending examinations while pursuing her Degree qualification, which is required for Government employees under the relevant Government Orders. Such conduct is alleged to amount to negligence in the discharge of duties and is stated to be in contravention of Rule 3 of the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge No.3: That the said Smt. Y. Jayasri filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court seeking promotion to the next cadre, though she was allegedly aware that she was not eligible for such promotion since her present position as Junior Accountant was not regularized. It is alleged that such conduct is unbecoming of a Government employee and is derogatory to the prestige of the institution and the Department, thereby violating Rule 2 of the APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 4. After receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted her defence statement on 24.09.2022. According to the petitioner, thereafter the Sub-Treasury Officer, Vizianagaram, conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the District Treasury Officer, Vizianagaram, in the year 2024. However, despite the lapse of nearly two years, the respondent authorities have neither concluded the enquiry nor passed any final orders. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, mainly contended that the charges framed against the petitioner are wholly misconceived. With regard to Charge No.1, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the allegation relates to the petitioner not obtaining permission from the competent authority for pursuing higher studies. However, according to the records, the petitioner had joined the Degree course much prior to her appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, the question of obtaining permission from the authorities does not arise at all. Hence, the first charge is baseless and contrary to the record. 6. The learned Senior Counsel further placed reliance on the Government Memos dated 06.04.1978 and 01.02.1982. According to the said memos, non-gazetted officers are required to obtain permission from the Heads of Departments (HODs), while gazetted officers must obtain permission from the Government before joining evening colleges or correspondence courses. However, there is no reference in the said memos to the category of Office Subordinate, which falls under the last grade service. Therefore, the said Government memos are not applicable to the case of the petitioner, as she was appointed as Office Subordinate, and there are no specific Government rules or instructions requiring such employees to obtain prior permission for pursuing higher studies. 7. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the above Government memos relate mainly to evening colleges, and there are no specific Government instructions governing Distance Education courses. Moreover, the said memos clearly state that pursuing studies should not interfere with the official duties of the Government employee. In the present case, the petitioner had already been pursuing the Degree course much prior to her appointment, and therefore the allegation made in Charge No.1 is unsustainable. 8. With regard to Charge No.2, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the same reasoning applies. The allegation is that the petitioner attended examinations without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. However, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the correspondence of the District Treasuries and Accounts Officer, District Treasury, Vizianagaram, dated 13.07.2022, which clearly indicates that the petitioner had availed casual leave on several occasions between 2014 and 2017 for attending her examinations. Therefore, the petitioner attended the examinations by properly availing leave and did not in any manner affect her official duties. 9. With regard to Charge No.3, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the charge itself is wholly untenable. The petitioner had approached the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking redressal of her grievance regarding promotion. It is well settled that a Government employee has a legal right to approach the Court for enforcement of her rights, and such action cannot be treated as misconduct. 10. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submitted that as per the Government Memos dated 06.04.1978 and 01.12.1982, Government employees are required to obtain permission from the Government or the Heads of Departments before pursuing correspondence courses or joining evening colleges. In the present case, the petitioner did not obtain any such permission before pursuing her Degree course, and therefore she has violated the Government instructions. 11. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that since the petitioner had already filed Writ Petition No.5323 of 2022 and her services in the post of Junior Accountant were not regularized, she was not eligible for promotion to the next cadre. 12. Considering the submissions made by both sides and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Government Memos dated 06.04.1978 and 01.02.1982 stipulate that non-gazetted officers must obtain permission from the Heads of Departments and gazetted officers must obtain permission from the Government before pursuing higher studies. However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed as an Office Subordinate, which falls under the last grade service. The respondents have not placed any specific Government rules or instructions applicable to employees belonging to the last grade service requiring them to obtain prior permission for pursuing higher studies. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that Charge Nos.1 and 2 are contrary to the record and are not supported by any statutory rule or Government instruction. Therefore, the said charges are not sustainable. Insofar as Charge No.3 is concerned, this Court is of the view that filing a writ petition before the High Court for enforcement of legal rights cannot amount to misconduct. A Government employee cannot be restrained from approaching the Court of law for appropriate relief. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned charge memo dated 17.09.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent is unsustainable and contrary to the record. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned charge memo dated 17.09.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH 06.04.2026 klk 45 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 990/2023 06.04.2026 klk