APHC010152042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7801/2025 Between: Megavath Pedda Vasaram Naik ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POODATTU AMARENDER 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 appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon Specialist Pediatrician without reference to the ACB case vide Cr.No.2/RCO-ACB/SKL/2016 dated 25.06.2016/Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.194 Social Welfare (TW.Ser.ll) Department dt:18.07.2022, pending against him as illegal arbitrary discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Civil Surgeon Specialist (Pediatrician), without reference to the ACB case/charge memo pending against him from the date of his eligibility with all service and monetary benefits and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Sri Poodattu Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. Petitioner was appointed as Deputy Civil Surgeon on 25.10.2010 and while on deputation to Tribal Welfare Department during the period of 2015- 17, a case was registered against various persons including the petitioner herein in FIR No.2 of 2016. Basing on the said criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.07.2017 and later got reinstated on 04.11.2019. He was issued charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.194 dated 18.07.2022 as he was involved in criminal case. Petitioner submitted explanation on 27.03.2024 refuting the same and the proceedings are pending. As of now, no Enquiry Officer has been appointed. Petitioner is eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Civil Surgeon Specialist (Pediatrician). Respondents stated to have commenced the process of undertaking promotion to the aforesaid post for the panel year 2024-25 and the petitioner apprehend that in view of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, his name would not be considered within zone of consideration. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on instructions, would submit that the case of the petitioner would be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999. 5. As seen from the material available on record, a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.194 dated 18.07.2022 is pending against the petitioner. However, the inquiry is not completed so far. 6. In Rajeswara Reddy’s case, at para No.6, 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 for promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, and no interference is called for with the said order.” 7. 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. 8. 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. 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. 9. 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 reference to the aforementioned charge memo. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 26th March, 2025 RKS