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 GUNARANJAN^ WRIT PETITION NO: 14524 OF 2025 \ Between: Shaik Rafi, S/o China Baraimam, aged 53 years, Working as AEE (R &B) Section Darsi, Prakasham District R/o D.No. 4-12-A1 Kalyanamandapam Street, Kanigiri, Prakasham District. Talluri ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, TR & B Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn), Roads and Buildings Department, State of A.P. M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna 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 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 Dy.E.E. on mere pendency of a Charge Memo.No.TRB02- ADMN/41/2021- VIG SEC-RB ADMIN(Cmp.No.146413)-8. Dt 17- 12-2021, for the incident of 2017 issued by the 2nd respondent, even though the petitioner came under the zone of consideration for the panel year 2024-2025, the delay in conclusion and dening his promotion as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer in the existing vacancies without reference to the pending Charge Memo dated 17-12-2021, on the same analogy of similar orders passed against the same charge Memo in W.P.No.23762 of 2023, datedi9-09-2023 by duly following the Division Bench orders passed in case of State of A.P. Vs. A. Rajeswara Reddy’s case, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 1-11-2008. / lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy.E.E. without reference to the pending Charge Memo dated; 17-12-2021 issued by the 2""^ respondent for the incident relates to the year 2017 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SARMA C. V. S. S. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010286672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 14524/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Shaik Rafi AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SARMACVSS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II 2 HCGR, J W.P.No.14524 of2025 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 Dy.E.E. on mere pendency of a Charge Memo.No.TRB02- ADMN/41/2021- VIG SEC-RB ADMIN(Cmp.No.146413)-8. Dt 17-12-2021, for the incident of 2017 issued by the 2'"'^ respondent, even though the petitioner came under the zone of consideration for the panel year 2024-2025, the delay in conclusion and denying his promotion as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer in the existing vacancies without reference to the pending Charge Memo dated 17-12-2021, on the analogy of similar orders passed against the same charge Memo in W.P.No.23762 of 2023, dated19-09- 2023 by duly following the Division Bench orders passed in case of State of A.P. Vs. A.Rajeswara Reddy’s case, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 1-11-2008, and to pass such other order or orders...” Heard Sri Sarma C.V.S.S. learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-ll for respondents. same 2. Petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Engineer and he vide Memo No.TRB02- 3. has been issued charge memo ADMN/41/2021-V1G SEC-RB ADMIN (Cmp.No.1460413)-8, dated 17.12.2021, alleging that he involved in certain irregularities in execution of works. For which, petitioner has submitted explanation 3 HCGR, J W.P.No.14524 of2025 on 24.11.2022 refuting said allegations and the inquiry is stated to be pending. 4. 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 eligible and falling within the zone of consideration. he is 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll submit that the respondent authorities will consider the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. would case of the Administration 6. The Government issued Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 G.O.Ms.No.91, G.O.Ms.No.679 General and thereafter General Administration Department, dated 12.09.2022. fixing timelines to conclude 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. (Ser.C) the V 4 f. HCGR, J W.P.No.14524 of2025 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 7. charge memo. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, T (R and B) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn), Roads and Buildings Department, State of A.P. M.G.Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. Sri Sarma C. V. S. S., Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. OneCCto 4. Two CCs to GP for Services-ll 5. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 ORDER WP.No.14524 of 2025 r 2 7 JUN 2025 irentSec Co VftF. ms. DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS