APHC010355872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 18203/2025 Between: 1. GADDE SRINIVAS, S/O CHINNA SOMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. COMISSIONER (ST), R/O FLAT NO.301, SRINIVASAM APARTMENT, K.C.P.COLONY, KANURU,VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (COMMERCIAL TAXES) VIGILANCE VI DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIET BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER ST, ANDHRA PRADESH, KUNCHANAPALLI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER ST, , VIJAYAWADA-I DIVISION, 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 tomay be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo CCTs Ref.No.V1/80/2022-1, dt.07-06-2022 against the Petitioner with eference to surprise check conducted on 26-04-2016 on the allegation of lack of supervision though after lapse of 9 years is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.257, dt. 10-06-1999, G.O.Ms.No.679, dt.01-11-2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 dt. 12-09-2022. Consequently, direct the Respondents to 2 consider the Petitioner promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (ST) without reference to the charge memo vide CCT's Ref.No.VI/80/2022-1, dt.07- 06-2022 and further direct to conclude the charges within stipulated time and to pass IA 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner (ST) without reference to the charge memo vide CCT's Ref.No.V1/80/2022-1, dt.07-06-2022 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.18203 of 2025 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.3 in not concluding the disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo CCT’s Ref. No.V1/80/2022-1, dated 07.06.2022 against the Petitioner with reference to surprise check conducted on 26.04.2016 on the allegation of lack of supervision though after lapse of 9 years as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the case are as follows: The Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer in the year 1995 and was promoted as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in the year 2005 and is presently working as Assistant Commissioner. While he was working as Commercial Tax Officer, a surprise check was conducted by ACB Officials on 26.04.2016 and found certain irregularities. Thereafter, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner under Rule 20 of APCCA Rules, 1991. After lapse of six (06) years, Respondent No.2 has issued a charge memo dated 07.06.2022, calling explanation from the petitioner. In response, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 27.06.2023. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in filing the writ petition is that though the charge memorandum was issued in the year 2022, there has been no progress in the enquiry and no Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer were appointed till date. 4 4. Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, by placing reliance on G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, submits that the Government had framed comprehensive guidelines fixing definite time frame for expediting the process of disciplinary cases in supersession of the previous guidelines. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in simple cases, the enquiry should be completed within three months and in complicated cases, the enquiry should be completed within five to six months and seeks for expeditious conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Learned counsel also relied on G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administation (SER-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, which provides for promotion on adhoc basis, provided the charge is not of a serious nature. The further contention is that this Court in similar circumstances in W.P.No.14410 of 2025 directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Assistant Director/Assistant City Planner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, if the Petitioner is in the zone of consideration. 5. Learned Government Pleader would submit that due to certain administrative issues, there is delay, however, submitted that the enquiry would be completed as expeditiously as possible as mandated under the G.O.Ms.No.91 relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 5 6. Considering the submissions made, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 21.07.2025 SCS 6 259 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.18203 of 2025 Date: 21.07.2025 SCS