APHC010260502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 11701/2019 Between: Ch. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Suryanarayana Murthy, Aged About 53 Years, Deputy Range Officer, Nallijarla Section, West Godavari District, R/o. Nallijarla Section, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force) Government of A.P., Aranya Bhavan, Agathavarapadu, Guntur. , 3. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District. ...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 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner pursuant to the charge memo issued by the 3"'^ Respondent vide Rc. no. 1966/2016-M8 dated 10-08-2016 for an alleged incident pertaining to 2014- 15, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by the delay, contrary to the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 679 dated 01-11-2008 and the time limit stipulated in Rule 20 of ARCS (CC &A) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be considered and promoted as Forest Range Officer with consequential benefits for the panel year 2018-19 without .disciplinary proceedings on the analogy of Orders passed 2019 dared 23-07-2019 and other similar such all reference to the in W.P. No. 9656 of V i?’: cases. lA NO: 1 OF 2niQ Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to praying that in the circumstances stated consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer without reference to charge no. 1966/2016-M8 10-08-2016 memo issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Rc. along with other eligible candidates. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRff. RAVINDRA BABU V Counsel for the Respondents :GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010260502019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 11701/2019 Between: Ch. Srinivasa Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.1 RAVINDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.GP FOR FORESTS (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “...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 initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner pursuant to the charge memo issued by the Respondent vide Rc.no.1966/2016~M8, dated 10.08.2016 for an alleged incident pertaining to 2014-15 as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by the delay, contrary to the orders Issued In G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and the time limit stipulated in Rule 20 of ARCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and further be pleased to declare that the Petitioner is entitled to be considered and promoted as Forest Range Officer with all consequential benefits for the panel year 2018-19 without reference to the disciplinary proceedings on the analogy of Orders passed in 2 W.P.No.9656 of 2019 dated 23.07.2019 and other similar such cases and to pass...". 2. Heard Sri I.Ravindara Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a charge memo was issued against the petitioner, dated 10.08.2016. Petitioner has filed wrong written statement imputing the following charge;- “That Sri Ch.Srinivasa Rao, the then Deputy Range Officer, Vijayawada Section mislead the Hon’ble Court by submitting wrong written statement without removing the cairns in the land of Sri A.Umamaheswara Rao, Lilli Pulla Master” 4. Learned counsel would submit that since then there was no progress in the enquiry because of this charge memo is pending against the petitioner. He was not considered for promotion. Learned counsel further would submit that this issue is a covered matter. In the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9656 of 2019, dated 23.07.2019, wherein the learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench which is reported in 2010 (4) ALT 374 (D.B.) in case of Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and another, passed orders directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein for promotion without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending against her. 5. Learned counsel would submit that in the present case also the charge memo which was issued in the year 2016 is still pending due to which 3 petitioner could not get the promotion, a similar order may be passed in the present case also. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that since it is a covered matter, Court may pass appropriate orders. 7. In W.P.No.9656 of 2019, dated 23.07.2019, para Nos.4 to 9 reads as follows;- In order to resolve the controversy involved in the writ petition, it is relevant to consider the two judgments of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and of this Court. 4. In the case of Government of A.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and another \ the Division Bench held that disciplinary proceedings initiated against an employee of Government are to be completed within three months in simple cases and in six months in complicated cases as per policy decision taken by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008. 5. In the same case, the Division Bench also directed the concerned authorities to consider the case of the employee therein for promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings while upholding the order of the Administrative Tribunal. 6. In the said judgment, the Division Bench has also considered G.O.Ms.No.257, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept, dated 10.06.1999. Recently, another Division Bench of this Court, in .WP.No.2246 of 2019 and batch also, while considering an identical controversy as involved in this petition, directed the concerned authorities to consider the case of the applicants/respondents therein for promotion in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 7. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the above two judgments, the legal position is now clear that mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings and that too, for long period, by itself, cannot be a ground to deny promotion to the eligible employees on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against them. 8. 1 2010 (4) ALT 374 (D.B.) 4 rm In the instant case, the charge memo was issued to the petitioner in the year 2016 and since then, disciplinary proceedings are pending against her even after three years period has been eiapsed. This is against to the policy of the Government that the disciplinary proceedings in all simple matters are to be concluded within three months and in serious matters, within six months. The said laches on the part of the department in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings within reasonable time and keeping it pending for years together cannot be a ground to deny promotion to the petitioner or to consider her case for being promoted. ” 9. In the light of the aforementioned premises, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without reference to the charge memo dated 10.08.2016 which is pending against him and take appropriate decision according to governing rules and law, subject to the result of the departmental enquiry. No order as to costs. 7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To I.The Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist. 2.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Flead of Forest Force) Government of A.P., Aranya Bhavan, Agathavarapadu, Guntur. 3. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle Rajahmahendravaram, East Godavari District. 4.One CC to Sri I. Ravindra Babu (OPUC) 5. Two CCs to GP for Forest, Fligh Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) 4. Three CD Copies Cnr ■A “ HIGH COURT DATED:19/06/2025 ORDER WP 11701/2019 ^ 0 8 JUL 2025 rfAntSectioo. m.s DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS