APHC010196092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9859/2025 Between: G Simhadrinaidu ...PETITIONER AND The State of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 HCGR, J W.P.No.9859 of 2025 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 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in belatedly initiating and continuing disciplinary proceedings in respect of an alleged incident pertaining to the period from 2000/2007 vide Charge Memo issued in Memo No.G/980/2022-6, dated 20- 03-2023 and revised Articles of Charge vide Memo No.G/980/2023-6, dated 19-04-2023 by the 4th Respondent and thereby denying promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II on the ground of pendency of Disciplinary proceedings, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01-11-2008 and Rule 20 of APCS (CCA) Ruses, 1991 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and set-aside the same accordingly and further be pleased to declare that the Petitioner is entitled to have his case considered and be promoted as Sub-Registrar Grade-II with benefits incidental thereto without reference to the Charge Memo issued vide Memo No.G/980/2022-6, dated 20-03- 2023 and revised Articles of charge Memo No. G/980/2023- 6, dated 19-04-2023 by the 4th Respondent in relation to an alleged incident pertaining to the year 2000/2007 in the interest of justice…” 2. The petitioner, while working as Senior Assistant, was issued charge memo dated 20.03.2023, with sole article of charge alleging that he committed grave misconduct while working as In-charge Joint Sub-Registrar Grade-II of R.O.(OB) at Nellore, in preserving records, resulting in missing of T.I register No.414. Thereafter, the respondents withdrew the aforesaid charge memo and issued revised common proceedings vide Procgs.No.G/980/2022, dated 19.04.2023, in terms of Rule 24 of A.P.C.S.(CC&A) Rules, 1991 3 HCGR, J W.P.No.9859 of 2025 against nine officers, which included petitioner as well, on the very same set of charges. The petitioner has submitted explanation on 11.05.2023, refuting the said charges, and the inquiry is pending. 3. Heard Sri V.Ravichandran, 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 petitioner has submitted explanation way back on 11.05.2023, the inquiry is not completed so far. Now, the respondents are effecting promotions to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II and that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to be considered for promotion. But, for the pendency of present disciplinary proceedings his name is not being considered. By placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.5686 of 2025, he prays to pass similar order by directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents submits that inquiry is going on and having regard to explanation submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority will conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. He does not oppose the plea with respect to consideration 4 HCGR, J W.P.No.9859 of 2025 of petitioner’s case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. 6. The petitioner appears to have worked at Nellore Sub- Registrar Office during the period 2018-2019, for a short period. For which, the respondents have issued initial charge memo on 20.03.2023, later revised common proceedings dated 19.04.2023. For which, proper explanation came to be submitted on 11.05.2023. However, inquiry has not been concluded so far. For the delay on the part of respondents in not concluding the inquiry, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and penalize, in particular his case for promotion cannot be denied. 7. Following the view expressed by this Court in B.Nagesh Babu v. State of A.P.1, the present Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms: “The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-II, subject to petitioner possessing requisite qualification, without reference to Charge Memo No.G/980/2023-6 dated 20.03.2023 and revised common proceedings vide Procgs.No.G/980/2022 dated 19.04.2023, in terms of 1 Order dated 16.12.2024 in W.P.No.29618 of 2024 5 HCGR, J W.P.No.9859 of 2025 G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999.” There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 17.04.2025 KBN