. % . h AP4HC010345372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) •I THURSDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 17289 OF 2025 Between: D Madhava Rao, s/o Late Kollaiah, 9-87, Ponnalaru Mandal, Singara Botta Palem, Singarabottapalem, Prakasam ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary TR and 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.1460413)-9, 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 denying his promotion as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the 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 charge Memo in W.P.No. 14524 of 2025, dated.20-06-2025 by duly following the Division Bench orders passed in case of State of A.P. Vs. A. Rajeswara Reddys case, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 679, dated 1-11- 2008. case same 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 2nd respondent for the incident relates to the 2017 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 made the following order: year APHC010345372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.17289 of 2025 Between: 9-87, 1.D. MADHAVA RAO, S/0 LATE KOLLAIAH, PONNALARU MANDAL, SINGARA BOTTA PALEM, SINGARABOTTAPALEM, PRAKASAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS TR&B DEPARTMENT, A.P. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF (ADMN), ROADS & BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF A.P., M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT{S): 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 Charge ADMIN(Cmp.No.1460413)-9, 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 SEC-RB Memo.No.TRB02-ADMN/41 /2021 -VIG a I 2 CGR,J W.P.No.l7289of2025 conclusion and denying his pronnotion 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.14524 of 2025, dated: 20-06-2025 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 as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SARMAC.V.S.S. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 CGR,J W.P.No.17289 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Sarma C.V.S.S., learned counsel for petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-ll for respondents. 2. Petitioner is working as Assistant Executive Engineer. He has been issued charge memo vide Memo No.TRB02-ADMN/41/2021- VIG SEC-RB ADMIN (Cmp.No.1460413)-9 dated 17.12.2021, alleging that he is involved in certain irregularities in execution of works, for which he has submitted explanation on 03.11.2022, refuting said allegations and the inquiry is stated to be pending. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents have not concluded the inquiry within the timelines 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 eligible and falling 3. within the zone of consideration. 4. Learned 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. 5. 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) 4 CGRJ W.P.No.17289 of 2025 Department, dated 12.09.2022, fixing timelines to conclude the inquiry within three months in simple cases and six months in complicated cases. In the case at hand, the respondent authorities flouted the timelines fixed in the G.Os. and for the fault on the part of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner shall not be penalized. i 6. 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. The respondents are further directed to conclude the inquiry initiated against the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be order as to costs. no As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G. HELA NAIDU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary TR and B Department, State of AP, 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. 3. One CC to Sri. Sarma C V S S Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Three CD Copies gsc '.m HIGH COURT DATED:10/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 17289 OF 2025 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS