APHC010430292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21871/2025 Between: 1. T SRINIVASA SANJAY, S/O SUBBAIAH, AGE 57 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AT PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION,LAWYERSPET, ONGOLE, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (VIG- II) DEPARTMENT, AP GOVT SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PUBLIC HEALTH AND MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, OPP MANIPAL HOSPITAL, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature in WRIT of MANDAMUS aggrieved by the action of the Respondent in not considering Petitioners case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer by the Respondents which is highly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and violations of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith consider Petitioner's case promotion to 2 next level cadre post of Superintending Engineer as per GO Ms No 257 General Administration (SER.C) Director Dated 10.6.1999 and as per law without referring the pending Departmental proceedings vide GO Rt No 712 of Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Vig-I) Department Dated 21.5.2012 of 1st Respondent 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 to direct the Respondents to consider Petitioner’s case for promotion to next level post of Superintending Engineer as per GO Ms No 257 General Administration (SER.C) Dated 10.6.1999 and as per law without referring the pending Departmental proceedings vide GO Rt No 712 of Municipal Administration & Urban Director Development (Vig-I) Department Dated 21.5.2012 of 1st Respondent and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21871/2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Respondents in initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings vide Charge Memo bearing G.O.Rt.No.712, MA & UD, dated 21.05.2012 as illegal and arbitrary and consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer. 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1993 and subsequently, he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer in the year 2007 and as Executive Engineer in the year 2017. It is stated that now he is eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. While so, a Charge Memo was issued to the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.712, MA and UD, dated 21.05.2012, whereunder two charges were framed against the Petitioner. 3. The Charge No.1 pertains to recommendation of bill for substandard CC Road work and allowed execution of work without proper agreement. As the case of the Petitioner would not be considered for promotion due to charge memorandum, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Charges against the Petitioner are trivial in nature nor there is any explanation as to why there was delay of more than 13 years in concluding the disciplinary enquiry. He 4 further submits that the charge made against the Petitioner to lay a Road is visible to all and in that context, the delay is inexplicable. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that the Petitioner cannot raise issue of challenge to the Charge Memorandum after participating in the enquiry and as regards the issue of promotion, he submitted that his case would be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. 6. Having heard the respective submissions, this Court is of the opinion that there is inexplicable delay of 13 years in concluding the enquiry. A reading of the charge-memo would should that charges against the Petitioner are not very serious warranting the delay. infact, no witnesses were cited in the charge memorandum. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with following directions: i) The Respondents shall consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 and the respondent authorities are directed to take note of the abnormal delay of more than 13 years in concluding the proceedings and trivial charges in the charge memorandum while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. 5 ii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 19.08.2025 SNI 6 55 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21871/2025 Date: 19.08.2025 SNI