IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6181 OF 2025 Between: K Sivakumar, S/o. Late K. Prathap, Aged about 29 Years, Occ Mandal Revenue Inspector, Flat No. 101, Sarojamma Nilayam, Near to Kalasam Building, Dhanalakshminagar, Avilala, Tirupati Rural (M), Andhra Pradesh - 517501 . ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Tahasildar, K.V.B. Puram, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Orders may or a Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondents, more particularly, the 2nd Respondent in issuing the Charge Memo vide ASEC0DP/2/2025/ADMN2 03.03.2025 after an inordinate delay of more than seven years from the dated alleged date of offence, solely with the intent to deny the benefit of promotion to the Petitioner for the post of Deputy Tahsildar and to negate the effect of the Final Seniority List dated 07.03.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and in violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside/quash the impugned Charge Memo issued in ASEC0DP/2/2025/ADMN2 dated 03.03.2025 on account of undue and unexplained delay, which is legally unsustainable. Consequently, set aside the Final Seniority List dated 07.03.2025 as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to established principles of service law. Consequently, direct the Respondents to forthwith promote the Petitioner to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, without reference to the pending disciplinary and criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. 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 Suspend the Charge Memo vide ASEC0DP/2/2025/ADMN2 dated 03.03.2025 issued by 2nd Respondent. lA NO: 2 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 respondent no. 2 to forthwith consider the petitioner s case for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, without reference to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings and without referring to the pendency of Criminal Case vide C.C. No. 387/2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Puttur. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. HANUMANTHA RAO VELLALACHERVU i,.. Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: it APHC010123352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY .THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 6181/2025 Between: K Sivakumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT(S) 1.HANUMANTHA RAO VELLALACHERVU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I 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 Orders or a Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the Respondents more particularly the 2nd Respondent in issuing the Charge Memo vide ASEC0DP/2/2025/ADMN2 dated 03.03.2025 after an inordinate delay of more than seven years from the alleged date of offence solely with the intent to deny the benefit of promotion to the Petitioner for the post of Deputy Tahsildar and to negate the effect of the Final Seniority List dated 07.03.2025 as illegal arbitrary discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside/quash the impugned Charge Memo issued in ASEC0DP/2/2025/ADMN2 dated 03.03.2025 on account of 2 undue and unexplained delay which Is legally unsustainable Consequently set aside the Final Seniority List dated 07.03.2025 as being arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to established principles of service law Consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith promote the Petitioner to the post of Deputy Tahsildar without reference to the pending disciplinary and criminal proceedings in accordance with law And / or pass such other order or orders....” 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 05.10.2017 on compassionate grounds. On allegation of fraudulent entries of Survey numbers by using the login of the Tahsildar, S.R.Puram, on 24.04.2017, 09.05.2017 and 21.05.2017 at different locations and in pursuance to adverse news article, a crime came to be registered at the instance of the de facto- complainant against various government officials, including the petitioner herein as one of the accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. On investigation, the police have filed charge sheet on 28.08.2018 and the case has been numbered as C.C.No.387 of 2018 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Puttur. Pending the same, even the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an internal enquiry and submitted a report on 19.08.2017 to the District Collector confirming that the then Tahsildar has misused her digital signature and she was solely responsible for such alleged fraudulent activity. After almost than 7 years, respondent No.2 has issued a charge memo vide Roc.ASECODP/2/2025 dated 03.03.2025 with statement of article of charge against the petitioner. The charge was leveled based on charge sheet filed connection with Crime No.50 of 2017, which is pending in C,C.No.387 of 2018 and the petitioner has submitted explanation to the same. Final seniority list in more in 3 the cadre of senior assistants, as on 30.11.2024, came to be prepared on 07.03.2025, in which the petitioner is figuring at serial No.53. However, in the remarks column, it is mentioned that though he is qualified, disciplinary case is pending. In view of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the case of petitioner for promotion was not considered. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel representing Sri Hanumantha Rao Vellalacheruvu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the incident has happened way back during the months of April and May of 2017, by which date the petitioner was not in service as he came to be appointed only on 05.10.2017. Further, even after submission of the Revenue Divisional Officer’s report dated 19.08.2017 to the District Collector confirming that the then Tahsildar has misused her digital signature in committing the alleged fraudulent act of manipulation of entries, after almost more than 7 years. respondent No.2 issued charge memo only to defeat the petitioner’s right to promotion. He also submits that as the alleged act of making fraudulent entries by misusing the digital signature of MRO is being inquired into by the criminal Court in C.C.No.387 of 2018, for the same allegation pending said proceedings, petitioner could not have been issued a charge memo dated 03.03.2025. The petitioner could not be expected to submit and participate in 1 4 the departmental enquiry as the same would prejudice his defence before the trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that delay of more than 7 years in 5. serving the charge memo would seriously prejudice his claim for promotion and at any rate the mere pendency of the disciplinary proceedings could not come in his way for promotion. He placed reliance on the case of State of Punjab & Ors., v. Chaman Lai Goyal^ and submits that the interest of petitioner be protected and balanced approach has to be taken by directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion without reference and taking into consideration the charges of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings if he is otherwise eligible and meritorious. He also placed reliance on the order passed in W.P.No.17246 of 2024 by which a co-ordinate bench of this Court, while following the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. A.RaJeswara Reddy, ^ directed the respondents therein to consider the petitioners case for promotion without reference to disciplinary proceedings. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader by placing 6. reliance on written instructions dated 11.03.2025 submits that the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion as criminal case is pending against him besides the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, his case would be considered only after conclusion of aforesaid cases. He further submits that the disciplinary enquiry initiated in pursuance to the charge memo dated ^ (19^S)^5upreme Court Cases 570 ^2010 (4) ALT 374 (DB) . k 5 03.03.2025 will be concluded soon and shall complete the same within the time frame prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022. It is undisputed that based on the complaint lodged by the de facto- 7. complainant, a crime came to be registered way back in the year 2017 and charge sheet has been filed before the Junior Civil Judge, Puttur, in C.C.No.387of 2018 which is pending trial. After delay of more than 7 years, respondent No.2 has served charge memo dated 03.03.2025 with article of charge by reference to C.C.No.387of 2018. The sum and substance of the enquiry that is pending in C.C.No.387 of 2018 is sought to be now enquired into by the respondents in the departmental proceedings. The Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors., v. Chaman Lai Goyal case, while considering the similar situation of delay in serving the charges 8. has tried to balance the interest of both the employer and employee and in the said context has held as follows: ‘‘Applying the balancing process, we are of the opinion that the quashing of charges and of the order appointing enquiry officer was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It Is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. 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. Ibis direction is made in the particular facts and circumstances of the case though we are aware that the Rules and practice normally followed in such cases may be different. The promotion so made, if any, pending the enquiry shall, however, be subject to review after the conclusion of the \ enquiry and in the light of the findings in the enquiry. It is also ' directed that the enquiry against the respondent shall be .a 6 concluded within eight months from today. The respondent shall cooperate in concluding the enguin/. It Is obvious that if the respondent does not so cooperate, it shall be open to the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte. If the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aforesaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped.” 9. Even a co-ordinate bench of this Court in W.P.No.17246 of 2024 though it was a case of pending enquiry in pursuance to charges, as the enquiry was not completed within the time frame fixed in pursuance to G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 22.09.2022 and in the guise of enquiry, the petitioner therein was not considered for promotion, by following the judgement of Division Bench in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. A.Rajeswara Reddy case issued the following directions: "8. In Government of A.P., vs. A.Rajeswara Reddyl, 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 29.06.2022, if the petitioner possesses other requisite qualifications, as per law. No order as to costs. 7 10. Even in the present case, as the incident has happened in the year 2017 and disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated only on 03.03.2025, considering the fact that the petitioner has been shown in seniority list at serial No.53 and for the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings which came to be initiated recently, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction; “The respondents without reference and without taking into consideration the charge memo vide Roc.ASECODP/2/2025 dated 03.03.2025 or the pendency of the enquiry before respondent No.2, are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, after he is found fit for promotion in accordance with law. The respondents are also directed to account or complete the enquiry within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the enquiry is not completed within the said period then, the charge memo vide Roc.ASECODP/2/2025 dated 03.03.2025, shall stand quashed.” 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. There shall order as to costs. be no As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRiNiVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// Rr SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. 4. The Tahasildar, K.V.B. Puram, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri. Hanumantha Rao Vellalachervu Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:12/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.6181 of 2025 17MAR20?5 I . Current Section NL^SPATCvvea^ w DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS