IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJA WRIT PETITION NO: 14632 OF 2025 Between: K. S. Raghva Rao, S/o. K.V. Satyanarayana, Aged 56 years, working D.E.E. (R & B), Amalapuram Division, R/o. H.No. 68-10-25F, Sreenivasam Naney Street, Vidyuthnagar, Kakinada, Kakinada District. as ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, R & B Department, A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) (Admn), Road and Buildings Department State HOD'S Offices Building, MG Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Chief Engineer (R & B), NH and CRF, Room No. 412, State HOD'S Offices Building MG Road, Vijayawada. ...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 a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondent in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in R & B Department, on mere pendency of Charge Memo vide Memo No. TRB02- ADMN/216/2021-VIG SEC-RB ADMN (Cmp. No. 1561450) - 1 Dt. 10.12.2021 issued by 2nd respondent, denial of promotion is illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Contrary, consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of A Executive Engineer in the ensuing counsel without reference to the Charge Memo Vide Memo. No. TRB02- ADMN/216/2021-VIG SEC-RB ADMN (Cmp. No. 1561450) - 1, Dt. 10.12.2021,(for the incident relates the year 2017) on the same analogy of similar directions of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P. No. 25098 of 2024, which were granted by duly following the reported judgment of the Division Bench Govt of A.P rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Vs. A. Rajewara Reddy and G.O. Ms.No. 679, dated 01.11.2008. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in R&B Department in the existing vacancy, without reference to the Memo Vide Memo No. TRB02- ADMN/216/2021-VIG SEC-RB ADMN (Cmp. No. 1561450) - 1, Dt. 10.12.2021 in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 257 Dated 10.06.1999 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SARMA C. V. S. S. Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER APHC010286792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HS0 [3506] . b b FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 14632/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER K S Raghva Rao AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SARMAC VS S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II 2 HCGR, J W.P.No.14632 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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondent in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in R and B Department, on mere pendency of Charge Memo vide Memo No.TRB02-ADMN/216/2021-VIG SEC- RB ADMN (Cmp.No.1561450) -1, Dt.10.12.2021 issued by 2'"'^ respondent, denial of promotion is illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Contrary, consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in the ensuing counsel without reference to the Charge Memo vide Memo.No.TRB02-ADMN/216/2021-VIG SEC-RB ADMN (Cmp.No.1561450) - 1, Dt.10.12.2021, (for the incident relates the year 2017) on the same analogy of similar directions of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P. No. 25098 of 2024, which were granted by duly following the reported judgment of the Division Bench Govt of A.P rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Vs. A. Rajewara Reddy and G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008 and to pass such other order or orders...” Heard Sri Sarma C.V.S.S. learned counsel for the petitioner 2. and learned Government Pleader for Services-ll for respondents. 3. Petitioner is working as Deputy Executive Engineer and he has been issued charge memo vide Memo No.TRB02- ADMN/216/2021-VIG SEC-RB ADMIN (Cmp.No.1561450)-1. dated 10.12.2021, alleging that he involved in certain irregularities in execution of widening and strengthening of Pithapuram- 3 HCGR, J W.P.No.14632 of 2025 Dharmavaram road. For which, petitioner has submitted explanation refuting said allegations and the inquiry is stated to be pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have not concluded the inquiry within the timeliness provided by various Government Orders, which have stipulated specific timeframe. Under the guise of pendency of inquiry, the case of petitioner has not been considered for promotion, though he is 4. eligible and falling within the zone of consideration. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll would submit that the respondent authorities will consider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. 6. 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 within three months in case of simple and six months in case of complicated. 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. 4 HCGR, J W.P. No.14632 of 2025 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. 7. sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall As a stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGiSTRAR //TRUE COPY// %r SECTION OFFICER To. The Principal Secretary, R & B Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Engineer-in-Chief (R & B) (Admn), Road and Buildings Department, State HOD'S Offices Building, MG Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. The Chief Engineer (R & B), NH and CRF, Room No. 412, State HOD'S Offices Building MG Road, Vijayawada. One CC to Sri Sarma C. V .S.S., Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three C.D. Copies. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.14632of2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS