APHC010387332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19604 OF Between: Gandham Venkata Pallam Raju The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19604 OF 2025 Gandham Venkata Pallam Raju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19604 OF 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer at Respondent No.2 directorate of Town and Country Planning as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to file the present Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was appointed in the year 1993 in the office of Respondent No.2. Subsequently, he got promoted to Superintendent Engineer. At present, the Petitioner is working at Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC) as Town Planning Officer. While so, Respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.134, dated 05.02.2024 under Rule 20 of A.P.Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 alleging some irregularities against the work orders issued for certain works by the water supply department at GVMC in the year 2015. The Petitioner had submitted written explanation denying the allegations. Since then, no enquiry officer is appointed for conducting departmental enquiry. 3. It is stated that the Respondent No.2 intends to conduct DPC for the post of Chief Engineer and the Petitioner was in zone of consideration from promotion. At this stage, the Respondent No.2 had issued the impugned disciplinary proceedings to cause hindrance to Petitioner’s promotion. Hence, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government has provided timeline for concluding departmental enquiries specifically three months in case of simple cases and six months in case of complex cases in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2009 read with G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022 rather Respondents were not adhering the aforesaid timelines in concluding the enquiry, therefore, Petitioner cannot be denied his right to be considered for promotion. Even otherwise, Petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents on the other hand submits that enquiry would be concluded as expeditiously as possible. 6. Having heard the respective counsel and taking note of the fact that there is no progress in the departmental enquiry contrary to the time frame as fixed vide G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, with the consent of both the counsel at admission stage, with following directions: (i) The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, if Petitioner is otherwise, in the zone of consideration with requisite qualifications. (ii) The Respondents are also directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) The Disciplinary Authority as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be answerable for the delay in concluding the enquiry within the time frame as mentioned above. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 29.07.2025 KK