APHC010184962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9469/2025 Between: R Satyanarayana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 2 CGR, J W.P.No.9469 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent in not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps from the post of District registrar with out reference to the charge memo issued in G.O.Rt.No.886 Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department dated 11.11.2020 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to service rules in finalizing the same in terms of G.O.Ms.91 Dated:12.09.2022 apart from violation of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps from the post of District registrar and to pass such other order or orders.…” (in verbatim) 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is presently working as the District Registrar at Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District. During the course of his employment, he was issued a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.886, Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department, dated 11.11.2020, based on the sole charge that he failed to initiate disciplinary action against his erring subordinates who were responsible for the loss of revenue to the State Exchequer due to the undervaluation of stamp duty while registering various documents in the year 2014. The petitioner submitted explanations dated 02.08.2023 and 28.12.2024, refuting the above allegations. The disciplinary proceedings are stated to be pending, and as of now, no enquiry officer has been appointed. 3 CGR, J W.P.No.9469 of 2025 3. The petitioner is due for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Registration and Stamps, and as per the seniority list, he is stated to be eligible within the zone of consideration. Since he is due to retire next year, he contends that if his case is not considered under the guise of departmental proceedings, he would be deprived of his right to be considered for promotion. 4. Heard Sri S. Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the sole respondent. 5. Although the charge memo was issued on 11.11.2020, based on a sole allegation relating to the year 2014, no enquiry officer has been appointed so far, and the enquiry is likely to be delayed. Since the proceedings have not even commenced yet, the petitioner argues that if he is not considered for promotion due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, it would prejudice his prospects for promotion. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7753 of 2025 and requested similar relief in the present case. Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the said order reads as follows: 4 CGR, J W.P.No.9469 of 2025 “5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the order of the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in Government of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, and another Vs. A.Rajeswara Reddy 1 , wherein the Court dealt with a similar case and held that according to G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, the departmental proceedings have to be completed within 6 months, in complicated cases and 3 months in simple cases, promotions of the candidates cannot be deferred on the ground that in cases where departmental proceedings are pending beyond that period. 6. Hence, in view of the above, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without reference to the charge memo pending against her. It is, however, made clear that the promotion would be subject to the result of the inquiry. The respondents are also directed to complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from today. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7753 of 2025. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without reference to the charge memo pending against him. It is, however, made clear that the promotion would be subject to the result of the 1 2010 (4) ALT 374 (D.B.) 5 CGR, J W.P.No.9469 of 2025 inquiry. The respondents are also directed to complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN 10th April 2025 cbn 6 CGR, J W.P.No.9469 of 2025 253 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9469/2025 10th April, 2025 cbn