APHC010432262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY .X WRIT PETITION Nos: 21979 AND 19368 OF 2024 WRIT PETITION NO: 21979 OF 2024 Between: R. Sivaramudu, S/o. Late Krishna Murthy, Aged about 48 years, Tahsildar, Presently working at Adoni Mandal, R/o. Mother Land, Revenue Ward No.87, Kurnoo! Town, Kurnool District. Occ: H.No.87/1208 MLA ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to the Government (Land), Revenue (Ser.l) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur-522238 . 2. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration APIIC buildings, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. - 522503. 3. The District Collector, Collectorate Buildings, Kurnool, Kurnool District. -518001. 4. The Joint Collector/ Inquiry Officer, Kurnool District, Kurnool - 518001. ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to declare the action of Respondent No.3 in initiating disciplinary No.REV-ASEC0DPA/37/2018-SA(a1)-COLLKRNL proceedings Vide File dated 01.05.2018 against the Petitioner without the opinion of Respondent No.2 /Disciplinary authority, without leading evidence and marking documents as exhibits by Respondent No.4 submitting enquiry report dated 23/09/2024 issuing CCLAs Memo No. VS.II(1)/1427/2015 (e.148644). Dated 27/09/2024 by Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice as enshrined in Articles 14,21 of Constitution of India besides violative of Rule 20(2) of A.P.C.S (C.C.A) Rules 1991, consequently set aside the enquiry report of the Respondent No.4 Dated 23/09/2024 along with the CCLAs Memo No. VS.II(1)/14272015 (e.148644), /Dated 27/09/2024 which is initiated by Respondent No.3 Vide File No.REV- ASECODPA/37/2018-SA(a1 )-COLLKRN L dated 01.05.2018. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 stay all further proceedings in pursuance of File No.REV- ASECODP/V37/2018- SA(a1)-COLLKRNL dated 01.05.2018 of Respondent No.3 and the consequential CCLA’s Memo No. VS.11(1)714272015 (e.148644), /Dated 27/09/2024 of the Respondent No.2 pending the disposal of the main Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to the Government (Land), Revenue (Ser.l) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur-522238 . 2. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration APIIC buildings, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. - 522503. 3. The District Collector, CollectorateBuildings, Kurnool, Kurnool District. -518001. Joint Collector/ Inquiry Officer, Kurnool District, Kurnool 518001. ...Petitioners/Respondents 4. The AND Occ: S/o. Late Krishna Murthy, Aged about 48 years, R. Sivaramudu, Tahsildar, Presently working at Adoni Mandal, R/o. H.No.87/1208 MLA Mother Land, Revenue Ward No.87, Kurnool Town, Kurnool District. ...Respondent/Writ Petitioner 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 vacate the interim order dated 03.10.2024 in 21979 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition. l.A.No.l of 2024 in W.P.No Counsel for the Petitioner: SRi C. 3UMON Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I APHC010384172024 WRIT PFTITIQN NO: 19368 OF 2024 Between: R. Sivaramudu. S/o. Late Krishna Murthy. Aged about 48 years. Tahsildar. Presently working at Adoni Mandal. R/o H.No.87/1208 MLA Mother Revenue Ward No.87. Kurnool Town. Kurnool District. Occ; Land ...Petitioner AND of Andhra Pradesh. Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Government (Land). Revenue (Ser.l) Department. Secretariat. Velagapudi. Amaravathi. Guntur. 522238 2. Chief Commissioner of Mangalagiri. Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh. - 522503 1. The State the Land Administration. APllC buildings 3. The Departmental Promotion Committee, Commissioner Rep. by its Chief Revenue Department Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. - 522503 4. The District Collector, Collectorate Buildings, Kurnool, Kurnool District. of Land Administration, - 518001 ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to declare the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 175 (Revenue Ser-I Department) dated 31.08.2024 without considering the Petitioner fit for promotion from the panel of eligible Tahsildars for the post of Deputy Collector (Category-ll) and Respondent No.2s proceedings bearing CCLA ref no.REV02-31021/8/2023-SERVICES.i-SEC-CCLA(3) as manifestly arbitrary, inherently capricious, per se illegal, unreasonable, perverse, contrary to Rule of law, Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC AND A) Rules, 1991 and Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and opposed to G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and dated G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 issued by General Administration (Ser.C) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh besides being in excess of jurisdiction and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 16, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to set aside the same and to direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector (Category-ll) without reference to the Charge Memo dated 29.11.2018 and File No. REV-ASEC0DPA/37/2018-SA(A1)-COLLKRNL dated 01.05.2018 in supplementary Ad-hoc panel year 2023-24 by conducting departmental promotion committee. 01.09.2024 review lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 direct the Respondents to forthwith review promotion orders issued vfde G.O.Ms. No. 175 (Revenue Ser-I Department) dated 31.08.2024 by considering Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector (Category-ll) without reference to the Charge Memos pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C. SUMON Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following Common order: APHC010432262024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0-^0 [3460] 0 MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21979/2024 Between: 1.R SIVARAMUDU, S/0 LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC TAHSILDAR, PRESENTLY WORKING AT ADONI MANDAL, R/0 H.NO.87/1208 MLA MOTHER LAND, REVENUE WARD N0.87, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT (LAND), REVENUE (SER.L) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR-522238 . 2.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION APIIC BUILDINGS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. - 522503 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDINGS, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. - 518001 '■’9, 4.THE JOINT COLLECTOR/ INQUIRY OFFICER, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL - 518001 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to declare the action of Respondent No.3 in initiating disciplinary proceedings Vide File No.REV-ASEC0DPA/37/2018-SA(a1)- COLLKRNL dated 01.05.2018 against the Petitioner without the opinion of Respondent No.2 /Disciplinary authority leading evidence and marking documents as exhibits by Respondent No.4 submitting enquiry report dated 23/09/2024 issuing CCLAs Memo No. VS.II(1)/1427/2015 (e.148644). Dated 27/09/2024 by Respondent No.2 jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice as enshrined in Articles 14,21 of Constitution of India besides violative of Rule 20(2) of A.P.C.S (C.C.A) Rules 1391, consequently set aside the enquiry report of the Respondent No.4 Dated 23/09/2024 along with the CCLAs Memo No. VS.II(1)/14272015 (e.148644), /Dated 27/09/2024 which is initiated by Respondent No.3 Vide File No.REV-ASECODPA/37/2018-SA(a1 )-COLLKRN L 01.05.2018 and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a Writ of without illegal, arbitrary, without as dated 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in ASECODPA/37/2018- SA(a1)-COLLKRNL dated 01.05.2018 of Respondent No.3 and the consequential CCLA’s Memo No. VS.11(1)714272015 (e.148644), /Dated -» Respondent No.2 pending the disposal of the main Writ Petition and to pass pursuance of File No.REV- 27/09/2024 of the lA NO: 2 OF 2024 3 praying that in the Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 03.10.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No 21979 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.C SUMON Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PFTITIQN NO: 19368/2024 Between: 1.R SIVARAMUDU, S/0 LATE KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED OCC- TAHSILDAR, PRESENTLY ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AT ADONl MANDAL, R/0 H.NO.87/1208 MLA MOTHER LAND, REVENUE WARD NO.87, KURNOOL TOWN, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT (LAND), REVENUE (SER.L) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDl, AMARAVATHl, GUNTUR. 522238 2.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, APIIC BUILDINGS MANGALAGIRl, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. - 522503 3.THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRl, COMMISSIONER OF LAND DEPARTMENT REVENUE GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522503 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDINGS, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. - 518001 4.THE ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus praying or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction to declare the action of Respondent No.1 in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 175 (Revenue Ser-I Department) dated 31.08.2024 without considering the Petitioner fit for promotion from the panel of eligible Tahsildars for the post Deputy Collector (Category-ll) and Respondent No.2s CCLA ref no.REV02-31021/8/2023- SERVICES.I-SEC-CCLA(3) 01.09.2024 as manifestly arbitrary, inherently capricious, per se illegal, contrary to Rule of law, Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CC AND A) Rules, 1991 and Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and opposed to G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and dated G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 issued by General Administration (Ser.C) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh besides being in excess of jurisdiction and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Articles 14, 16, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India and of proceedings bearing unreasonable, perverse. consequently, to set aside the same and to direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Deputy Collector (Category-ll) without reference to the Charge Memo dated 29.11.2018 and File No. REV-ASEC0DPA/37/2018-SA(A1)-COLLKRNL dated 01.05.2018 in supplementary Ad-hoc panel year 2023-24 by conducting review departmental promotion committee and/or pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the praying that in the 5 Respondents to forthwith review promotion orders issued vide G.O.Ms. No. 175 (Revenue Ser-l Department) dated 31.08.2024 by considering Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector (Category-ll) without reference to the Charge Memos pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CSUMON Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.Nos.21979 & 19368 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: W.P.No.21979 of 2024 was filed questioning the disciplinary proceedings issued by Respondent No.3 vide File No.REV- ASEC0DPA/37/2018-SA (a-l)-COLLKRNL dated 01.05.208 against the Petitioner without the opinion of disciplinary authority, without leading evidence and marking documents as illegal and arbitrary. W.P.No.19368 of 2024 was filed declaring the action of Respondent No.l in issuing G.O.Ms.No.l75 (Revenue Ser-I Department) dated 31.08.2024 without considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector (Category-II) as arbitrary and illegal. 2. 3. As the Petitioner in these two cases is common, with the consent of learned counsel, the matters were taken up for hearing jointly and are disposed of by this common order. W.P.No.21979 ^ of 2024 is taken up as lead case and the facts are as under: 4. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Tahsildar and was discharging duties as such to the best of his abilities. While so. 2 the then Tahasildar of Kallur Mandal lodged a complaint against students of NTR Health University alleging that the Petitioner had issued false/fake caste certificates to enable them to submit during their counselling into MBBS/BDS courses for the academic year 2015-16. A criminal complaint was said to have been registered in Crime No.359 of 2015 dated 15.10.2015 before Kurnool IV Town Police Station, Kurnool for the offences under Sections 420, 466, 468, and 471 IPC and the same is said to be pending as on date. On the basis of the said allegations, the Petitioner was kept 5. under suspension vide proceedings bearing Rc.No.A1/4818/2015 issued by Respondent No.3 on 15.10.2015. Subsequently, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration-Respondent No.2 issued proceedings bearing No.VS.11 .(l)/1427/2015 dated 28.10.2016 extending the suspension for a further period of six (6) months. The Petitioner then filed O.A.No.3721 of 2016 before A.P.Administrative Tribunal, questioning the continuance of suspension of the Petitioner and the said O.A was allowed on • -1> 06.12.2016 directing the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service. 3 While so, Respondent No.3 i.e. District Collector issued 6. proceedings vide File No.REV-ASEC0DPA/37/2018-SA(A1)- COLLKRNL dated 01.05.2018 proposing to hold enquiry against the Petitioner under Rule 20 of A.P.Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’) and called upon the Petitioner to submit written defence regarding the allegation of issuance of bogus caste certificates to certain individuals without verifying the records and conducting preliminary enquiry. 7. The Petitioner submitted a statement of defence to Respondent No.3 on 11.05.2018 and thereupon the Respondent No.4 was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was concluded and an enquiry report was submitted to Respondent No.3 by the Enquiry Officer. The said enquiry report was furnished to the Petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation thereto. At this stage, the present writ petition is filed contending that Respondent No.3 i.e. District Collector has no authority to frame charges and it is only Respondent No.2, who can frame the charges. It is further stated that the Department did not lead any evidence or charges against the Petitioner and no documents were marked in evidence and in spite of the same, the enquiry 4 report held that the charges against the Petitioner are proved and therefore sought for quashing of the 23.09.2024. enquiry report dated 8. In the counter affidavit filed, it is stated that the District Collector, Kurnool had issued impugned charge memorandum and after receipt of written statement of defence from Petitioner on 11.05.2015, the same was submitted to Respondent No.3 for taking further action. Subsequently, Respondent No.2 on 03.09.2024 appointed Respondent No.4-Joint Collector Enquiry Officer and District Revenue Officer, Presenting Officer. On 23.09.2024, the as Kurnool as an enquiry report was submitted against the Petitioner holding that the charge against the Petitioner stood proved. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the District Collector, Kurnool is the controlling authority and the disciplinary authority and Respondent No.2 had appointed the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and therefore, the impugned charge memorandum cannot be found fault with. ■ ■ o. 9. W.P.No.19368 of 2024 was filed for consideration of the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy 5 Collector as the enquiry against the Petitioner was not concluded in spite of lapse of more than six (6) years as on the date of filing of the writ petition. As the enquiry was not concluded within the time specified in G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 the Petitioner sought for consideration of his case for promotion to the cadre of Deputy Collector without reference to the impugned charge memorandum. 10. In the counter affidavit filed thereto, it was stated that apart from the charge memorandum referred above, it was stated that the Respondent No.1 on the recommendations of vigilance department had initiated disciplinary action against the Petitioner and 18 others in different departments as unqualified persons posing themselves as Doctors and are rendering treatment to patients by establishing nursing homes/hospitals in Kurnool. It is also stated that the Petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No. 18988 of 2024 seeking for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector and the said writ petition was disposed of by directing the Respondent-authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms of G.OMs.No.257 GA (Ser.C) Department dated 10.06.1999. 6 11. It is stated that pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No. 18988 of 2024, the DPC for the panel year 2023-2024 had considered the case of the Petitioner and was of the opinion that it would not be in the public interest to give promotion to the Petitioner as the charges against the Petitioner are grave in nature. Therefore, without questioning the said aspect, present writ petition seeking for reconsideration of case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector cannot be sustained. 12. in the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner principally relied upon the language in Rule 20(2) of the Rules and contended that the District Collector is not the disciplinary authority for the cadre of the Tahsildar as per the ARCS Executive Branch Rules, 1992 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.950 dated 20.07.2006 and contended that since the issuance of charge memorandum is only upon satisfaction of the disciplinary authority i.e. Respondent No.2, the impugned charge memorandum issued by Respondent No.3 cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a judgment of ■ t> 7 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunny Abraham v. Union of India and another^. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S.Raju would submit that though the charge memorandum was issued by the District Collector, Kurnool, the charge memorandum and the written statement of defence of the Petitioner were furnished to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA) i.e. Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.2 had appointed the Enquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer and therefore, the impugned charge memorandum cannot be faulted. The further submission of the Learned Assistant Government Pleader was that post facto approval can also be given by the disciplinary authority considering the nature of charges. 13. As regards promotion. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that promotion pursuant to G.O.MS.No.257 GA (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999 is the discretion of the authority and in this case, the DPC was of the opinion that the * charges against the Petitioner as mentioned above are grave in nature, it may not be in public interest to promote the Petitioner. 14. (2021) 20"SC43 12 8 15. Having heard the respective counsel, the following i arise for consideration; issues (a) Whether the charge memorandum sustained? dated 01.05.2018 can be (b) Whether the Petitioner of Deputy Collector? can be considered for promotion to the post 16. Reasoning: The case revolves around Rule 20 (2) and (3) of the Rules and the same reads as under; m -Whenever the disciplinary authority Is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule, as the case may be, authority to inquire into the truth thereof uinoriiy lo EXPLANATION:-Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the disciplinary authority. (3) Where it Is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this rule and rule 21, the disciplinary authority or the cadre controlling authority who not designated as disciplinary authority and who is subordinate to the appointing authority can drawn up or cause to be drawn up. (i) The substance of the imputations of misconduct misbehavior into definite and distinct articles of charge. 00 A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge which shall contain. IS or (a) -a (b) NOTE;- Where the documents extracts of the documents Government. are voluminous relevant may be furnished to the 9 (2) The disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and copies of the statements of witnesses by which each article of charge Is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government servant to appear before the disciplinary authority on such day and at such time not exceeding ten days and submit a written statement of his defense and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. (5) (a) (b) (c ) On the date so fixed the disciplinary authority shall by an order appoint the inquiring authority and shall also appoint a Government servant as Presenting Officer to present the case in support of the articles of charge. Provided that the disciplinary authority may, if it considers necessary having regard to the facts and circuimstances of the case, appoint a legal practitioner or a legally trained Government Servant as Presenting Officer. (d) 17. As per the above Rule, whenever a disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for interfering into the truth of a Government servant, the disciplinary authority or the cadre control authority, which is not designated as disciplinary authority and who is subordinate to appointing authority can draw a charge ’ memorandum under Rule 20(3) of the Rules. Therefore, the charge memorandum issued by the District Collector need not be 10 faulted as he can issue charge memorandum, provided there are instructions to that effect from the Disciplinary authority. In the present case, the District Collector issued charge memorandum on 01.05.2018 and the articles of charge framed 18. was that the Petitioner had issued bogus caste certificates to certain individuals named therein. The documents were cited in Annexure-ll, but witnesses were not shown in Annexure-lll and the Petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 11.05.2018. 19. Both the charge memorandum as well as written statement of defence were forwarded to Respondent No.2. Upon consideration of the written statement of defence, the Respondent No.2 appointed Respondent No.4 as the Enquiry Officer and also appointed District Revenue Officer, Kurnoot as Presenting Officer vide proceedings CCLA’s Procg. No. VSII(1) / 1427 / 2015 (e.148644), dated 03.09.2024. Consequent thereto. an enquiry report was submitted on 23.09.2024 to Respondent No.2 for taking further action. The issuance of charge memorandum followed up with the 20. appointment of the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer are in 11 consonance with the procedure contemplated under Rule 20 referred above. The issue boils down to whether there was prior opinion of the disciplinary authority and any permission was accorded to the District Collector to issue charge memorandum. 21. There is no document filed along with the counter affidavit to establish the fact that the disciplinary authority had formulated an opinion regarding misconduct and had accorded permission to District Collector for issuance of the charge memorandum. However, under the Rules, there is no specific procedure or format in which the Disciplinary authority should inform the District Collector to issue a draft charge memorandum. In discharge of official works. Courts can draw a presumption that official acts are performed regularly i.e in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 22. The above view is further fortified by the fact that the District Collector had initially suspended the Petitioner on 15.10.2015 and the Disciplinary authority/Respondent No.2 had 'extended order of suspension of the Petitioner on 28.10.2016 vide proceedings bearing No.VS.11 .(l)/1427/2015 under Rule 8 of AP CCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. The extension of suspension by the 12 Respondent No.2 is clearly indicative of the fact that the Respondent No.2 was fully aware of the nature of allegations against the Petitioner and it is not as though the Respondent No.2 came to know about the allegations against the Petitioner only after charge memorandum was issued by the District Collector. In the light of the above, it can be safely concluded that the Respondent No.2 had formed prior opinion for initiation of disciplinary enquiry. Coming to the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited by the counsel for Petitioner in Sunny Abraham’s case (1 supra), the said Judgment was passed relying on prior judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. B.V.Gopinath^ to hold that prior approval is also required at the time of issuance of charge memorandum and mere decision to initiate enquiry would not suffice. 23. 24. it is to be noted that the entire gamut of case law regarding issuance of charge memorandum by the subordinate authority « was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of ^(2014) 1 see 351 13 Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra^. After reviewing all the precedents, it was opined that judgement in B.V.Gopinath’s case (2 supra) was not correctly decided. The relevant portion of the Judgment at paragraph 18 is extracted below: Bare perusal of Rule 55 reveals that it does not expressly specify the authority, who is competent to issue the charge-sheet. On the contrary, the decisions of this Court in B.V.Gopinath (supra) and Pramod Kumar (supra) dealt with different rules which expressly specified who could issue the charge-sheet. We have noted with some measure of disappointment that long-standing precedents of this Court, which did lend sustenance to the impugned charge-sheet, were neither placed before the Divisional Bench nor the Single Judge for consideration. This is one reason why we are persuaded to interfere. 18. As regards the requirement of approval of the charge 25. memorandum by the disciplinary authority before issuance which was the core point in Sunny Abraham’s case (1 supra), it was answered at paragraph 36 in Rukma Kesh Mishra’s case. The Paragraph 36 is extracted below; 36. Since invocation of the provisions in Discipline and Appeal Rules similar to Rule 14(3) of the 1965 Rules or Rule 17(3) of the 2016 Rules and citing failure to adhere to the same to invalidate orders terminating services of officers/employees is not too infrequent, we consider it proper to briefly touch upon the requirement thereof The Disciplinary Authority is mandated by the law to ‘draw up’ or ‘cause to be drawn up’ the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and distinct article ^ 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 368 14 of charge together with the statement of such imputations The phrases ‘draw up’ and ‘cause to be drawn up’ do have different meanings in the context of disciplinary proceedings, though both relate to drawing up of a charge-sheet By ‘draw up’, what is express is that the Disciplinary Authority itself is responsible for preparing the substance of imputation and the statement of allegations in support thereof whereas ‘cause to be drawn up’ would enable the Disciplinary Authority to instruct or direct someone else to prepare the substance and statement. The effect of it is that the Disciplinary Authority itself may not prepare the document but rather delegate the task to someone else. If the delegation is proved to have been made in favour of an authority holding an office superior to that of the officer/employee, proposed to be proceeded against, nothing much is required to be done and the courts ought to exercise restraint. 26. In view of the above, the only requirement to be seen to validate a charge memorandum is that the same should be issued by an authority superior to the delinquent/Petitioner herein. As the Charge memorandum was issued by the District Collector, the charge memorandum cannot be said to be not in consonance with the Rules. 27. Coming to the rejection of the case of the Petitioner by Respondent No.2 vide order dated 01.09.2024 for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector (Category-ll) in spite of the order of this Court in W.P.No.18988 of 2024, the 2"" Respondent vide order dated 01.09.2024 was of the opinion that the charges against the Petitioner are grave in nature and would be against 15 public interest to promote the Petitioner. However, there is no explanation as to why enquiry was kept pending for so many A balance has to be maintained between the departmental interest in not promoting persons with charges and the rights of individuals whose promotions are being denied on account of long pendency of disciplinary enquiry. years In the present case, the charge against the Petitioner was that he had issued bogus caste certificates against certain individuals. However, the charge does not mention as to how the Petitioner is singularly responsible for issuance of false caste certificates nor there is an explanation for the delay, nor does it 28. cite any witness. In view of the above reasoning, this Court is of the opinion 29. that: (i) The Charge memorandum issued to the Petitioner is held to be valid and in accordance with the Rules and W.P.No.21979 of 2024 is dismissed. (ii) The Respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion taking note of inordinate delay in vide File No.REV- concluding disciplinary enquiry 16 ASEC0DPA/37/2018-SA (a-l)-COLLKRNL dated W.P.No.19368 of 2024 is accordingly disposed of. 01.05.2018 and (iii) No orders as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A VIJAYA BABU - ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ^ectTon officer To, > The Special Chief Secretary to the Government (Land), Revenue (Ser.l) Department, State of Andhra Amaravathi, Guntur. 522238. 2^ The Chief Commissioner Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi of Land Administration, APIIC Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Government of Andhra Pradesh, buildings - 522503. Revenue Department Departmental Promotion Committee, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. - 522503. ^ The District Collector, Collectorate Buildings, Kurnool, Kurnool District. -518001. One CC to Sri C. Sumon, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services I, Two CD Copies High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Cnr HIGH COURT DATED;01/09/2025 COMMON ORDER WP Nos. 21979 and 19368 OF 2024 C 0 « SEP 2025 K - yco WXCiHTMt Sectloa^'y \^SgeAI£ViS^^ DISMISSING THE W.P. No.21979 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. No.19368 of 2024 WITHOUT COSTS