IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6033 OF 2025 Between: D. Nagaraju, S/o D. Sambasiva Rao (Late), aged about 44 years, R/o D.No.19-9-135, Etukuru Road, Dargamanyam, Nallacheruvu, Guntur. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary to the Govt., Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration, Tadepalli, Amaravati, Guntur District. 3. The Guntur Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Guntur. ...RESPONDENTS 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 declaring the action of the 1 Respondent in not concluding disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in GORt.No.409 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (VIG.II.1) department, dt.03-05-2018 and GORt.No.419 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (VIG.II.1) department, dt.03-05-2018 inspite of enquiry report being submitted by the enquiry officer in Lr.Roc.No.GSR/01/GMC/2021, dt.17-08-2022 is arbitrary, illegal and colourable exercise of power and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of St the Constitution of India and contrary to the GO’S and to issue a consequential direction directing the 1®* Respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in terms of the enquiry report in LR ROC.No.GSR/01/GMC/2021 dt.17-08-2022 forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the Respondents consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant by applying rule of reservation in promotion forthwith without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI A.S.C.BOSE, SC FOR MUNC & MUNC CORPORATION The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010114872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6033/2025 Between: D. Nagaraju, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.ARAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 2 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1 St Respondent in not concluding disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in G.O.Rt.No.409 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (VIG.II.1) department, dt.03-05-2018 and G.O.Rt.No.419 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (VIG.II.1) department, dt.03-05-2018 inspite of enquiry report being submitted by the enquiry officer in Lr.Roc.No.GSR/01/GMC/2021, dt.17-08-2022 is arbitrary, illegal and colourable exercise of power and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the GO’s and to issue a consequential direction directing the 1®* Respondent to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in terms of the enquiry report in LR ROC.No.GSR/01/GMC/2021, dt.17- 08-2022 forthwith and to pass....” 2. Heard Sri A.Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. 3. The petitioner while working as Bill Collector, was subjectedto disciplinary action, along with twelve other employees working with the 3'"^ respondent, by G.O.Rt.No.409, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.11.1) Department, dated 03.05.2018. Articles of Charges were issued by G.O.Rt.No.419, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.11.1) Department, dated 03.05.2018. The petitioner was charged with three charges, for which he submitted explanation. Inquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges, who submitted a report dated 17.08.2022 to respondent holding that the charges framed against the petitioner were not proved. However, the 1"‘ respondent by memo dated 24.03.2023, while communicating the copy of inquiry report. the 1 directed the petitioner to submit explanation within fifteen days on findings of the inquiry officer. The petitioner has not submitted any the articles of charges framed against him were explanation, as found to be not proved under the inquiry report. Later, the petitioner submitted representation dated 08.05.2023 requesting the 1 respondent to accept the findings of the inquiry authority and to drop further action against him. However, there is no response or any respondent by circular dated 06.09.2024, action taken. The 3' prepared provisional seniority list of Junior Office Assistants and Typists for the panel year 2024-2025 and requested to submit objections, if any. Due to pendency of departmental proceedings, the petitioner prospects in seniority would be affected. Aggrieved by the action of the 1®‘ respondent in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the present writ petition is preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though inquiry respondent way back in the 4. report was communicated to the 1 4 # month of March 2023, which candidly found that the articles of St charges framed against the petitioner found to be not proved, the 1 respondent, rather than accepting the same and dropping the proceedings, has not concluded the same so far. In view of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022, the respondents are mandated to complete the inquiry within a period of three months, if it is simple case, and six months, if it is complicated. Even after lapse of almost four to five years, after communication of charges, the inquiry is still pending contrary to timelines specified in the aforesaid G.O. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and A.S.C.Bose, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that inquiry will be completed within reasonable time, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022. 6. Admittedly, in the present case, inquiry report was issued on 17.08.2022 and articles of charges against the petitioner were stated to be not proved. Even, the 1®‘ respondent by memo dated 24.03.2023, while communicating the inquiry report, at paragraph No.4, has categorically stated that the findings of the inquiry authority in the inquiry report have been accepted and that charged officers were directed to submit written representations. Inasmuch as, the inquiry report has stated that charges against the petitioner 5 are not proved, the petitioner by representation dated 08.05.2023 requested the respondent to drop the proceedings. Be that as it may, even as per G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022, the timeline fixed In the present case, the respondents failed have to be adhered to. to conclude inquiry within the time stipulated under the said G.O. For the fault on the part of disciplinary authority in not concluding inquiry. the petitioner cannot be penalized. In State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lai Goyal\ the 7. Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “ At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately. ” 8. In The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and another v. A.RaJeswara Reddy, Deputy Collector^, the Division Bench of Composite High Court observed as follows: “ Since the petitioners did not complete the departmental proceedings against the respondent even after lapse of more than one and half years, the Tribunal has rightly directed consideration of the case of the respondent ^ (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 ^2010(4) ALT 374 \ % for promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, and no Interference Is called for with the said order.” 9. Ordinarily, an employee will not be considered for promotion if disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him based on serious allegations. However, an employee cannot be denied promotion by keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ 10. Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondents to complete the of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) dated 12.09.2022, within three (03) months. If the inquiry in terms Department respondents failed to conclude the inquiry within the time stipulated vide G.O.Rt.No.419 dated 03.05.2018, stands the charge memo quashed, without reference to any further orders. There shall be no order as to costs. sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall As a stand closed. ^/-k.TATARAG DEPUTY REGISTRAR ^ ^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 1. The 2. The Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration, Tadepalli, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation, Commissioner, Guntur. One CC to Sri A. Rajendra Babu, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services-I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT One CC to Sri A.S.C.Bose, SC for MUNC & MUNC Corporation. [OPUC] Three CD Copies. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. gi HIGH COURT DATED:11/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6033 of 2025 I 2 0 MAR 2025 Co, O^ . Current ssecuon ^y/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS