r IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAXJ^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 30946 OF 2024 Between: K V Madhava Rao, S/o. Late K. Appa Rao Aged 56 years, Occ Deputy Executive Engineer, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of AP, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration (Public Health) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Engineer in Chief, Public Health, Tadepalli, Guntur District. 3. The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. ...RESPONDENTS.- Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners promotion for the post of Executive Engineer is illegal and arbitrary of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to post of Executive Engineer. ^ lA NO: 1 OF 2024^ Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed 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 petitioner for the post of Executive Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 66, General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 30-01-1991 pending disposal of the writ petition. ^ Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI V V SATISH ^ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: ORDER SRS,J W.P.No.30946 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 30946/2024 APHC010590852024 [3331] Between; 1 K V MADHAVA RAO, S/0. LATE K. APPA RAO AGED 56 YEARS, GREATER ENGINEER, OCC DEPUTY EXECUTIVE VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION (PUBLIC HEALTH) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, PUBLIC HEALTH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3.THE GREATER ...RESPONDENT(S): Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be direction more particularly one in the Petition under circumstances stated in the pleased to issue any writ, order or nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners promotion for the post of Executive Engineer is Constitution of India and to illegal and arbitrary of Article 14 of the SRSJ^ W.P.No.30946 of 20^4 consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to post of Executive Engineer and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 petitioner for the post of Executive Engineer in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 66, General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 30-01-1991 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VVSATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following ORDER: The above writ petition is filed to declare respondent No.2's action in not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was appointed as a Work Inspector in 1997 in respondent No.3 - Corporation. Later in the year, 2004, the petitioner was promoted to Assistant Engineer and further promoted to Assistant Executive Engineer, in the year, 2005. While the petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer, the officials of ACB registered a case in Cr.No.15/RCA-VSP of 2016 on the ground that the petitioner acquired assets disproportiona te to known sources of legal income and he was suspended from service on 16.09.2016. Later he was reinstated into service on 05.11.2018. No charge sheet has been filed so far, in the criminal case. Respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.43 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Vig.l) Department, dated 11.03.2024, declining to grant permission to prosecute the petitioner and entrusted the issue to the department, to initiate departmental proceedings. 2. SRS,J W.P.No.30946 of 2024 Since, the petitioner’s case is not considered for promotion, because of the pendency of criminal proceedings, the above writ petition is filed. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, for respondents 1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pending the criminal case registered by ACB, when the petitioner’s candidature was not considered for promotion to Deputy Executive Engineer, without reference to the aforementioned criminal case, the petitioner filed W.P.No.745 of 2019 and Division Bench of this Court, on 13.01.2019, granted an interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.745 of 2019, which reads as under: “As it is stated that no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and that not even a charge memo has been issued to him, there shall be interim direction as prayed for subject to the petitioner being otherwise suitable and eligible for promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that in of the interim order dated 13.01.2019, the petitioner was promoted the post of Deputy Executive Engineer vide proceedings No.111/CS1/2020 dated 28.09.2020 (Ex.P3). 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services produced a copy of the instructions furnished by respondent No.2, wherein it was mentioned that Rule 5(A) of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 takes care of the situation. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner is ineligible for promotion due to the pendency of the criminal case. Thus, as seen from the pleadings and the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the registration of Cr.No.15/RCA-V SP of 2016 against the petitioner by the officials of ACB under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998. 3. 5. pursuance to 7. SRSJ^ W.P.No.30946 of 202^ Para 5(A) of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 deals with the cases of the employees, facing disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution, for appointment by promotion or transfer to the next higher categories. Three categories are referred to under Rule 5A of the G.O.Ms.No.257, which are extracted hereunder: 8. Officers under suspension; Officers in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; Officers in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending. i) ii) iii) In the case at hand, by G.O.I\/Is.No.43 dated 11.03.2024 (Ex.P5), the Government declined to grant permission to prosecute the petitioner for a criminal offence and, in fact, directed the Director General, ACB to furnish draft Articles of charges against the accused officer, to the Government, for conducting departmental inquiry. The said G.O. was issued in March 2024 and is subsisting as of today. Disciplinary proceedings are not initiated against the petitioner, so far. A perusal of the instructions placed before this Court does not indicate the initiation of any disciplinary proceedings, against the petitioner. 9. Thus, the discussion demonstrates that neither a charge sheet is filed by the police nor departmental proceedings are pending against the petitioner, so far. In the absence of either a charge sheet or a charge memo, respondent No.2 cannot deny consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. 10. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing respondent No.2 to consider, the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer, if the petitioner is in the zone of 11. SRS,J W.P.No.30946 of 2024 consideration, without reference to the Cr.No.15/RCA-VSP of 2016, registered by ACB, Visakhapatnam. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU TRAR //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REQISI SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration (Public Health) Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Engineer in Chief, Public Health, Tadepalli, Guntur District. The Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam. One CC to Sri V V Satish Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services IV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. TF HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 ORDER OF ANO#^ WP.No.30946 of 2024 0 7 FEB 2C:5 J Current Section O DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION, WITHOUT COSTS