IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE y PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE SUBBA AMARAVATI REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31416 OF 7n9A Between: Nilla Ramalingam, S/o Balaveerayya, Aged about 46 years, Occ Hostel Welfare Officer Gr-ll, Govt., SW Boys Hostel, Penfapadu, West Godavari 0. D.No.13-11-15, Tadepalligudem, Kobbarithota, Tadepalligudem West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The District Collector, Eluru. 2. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare 3. The Director of Social Welfare, AP, Vijayawada, Krishrra District, he State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi , Eluru. Guntur District. ...RESPONDENTS ' Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying that in circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased d to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of he Respondents in not considering the case ofthe Petitioner to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer disciplinary proceedings / charge Memo Proc. for promotion Gr-I (HWO) without reference to the memo pending against him vide Charge ^ dt 01.11.2019 Rc. NO.A2/243/2019 discriminatory and violative as illegal, arbitrary. of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the consequently, direct the Respondents to the post of Hostel Welfare Constitution of to promote the Petitioner Officef Gr-I (HWO), without reference .India and to the r disciplinary proceedings / charge of his eligibility with all memo pending against him from the date service and monetary benefits.'^ lA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC stated In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be P eased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for ' Officer Gr-I (HWO), without praying that in the circumstances promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare reference to the disciplinary proceedings disposal of the above writ petition. pending against him pending Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent Nos. SRI POODATTU AMARENDER 1 to 4:SRI S. SARATH, AGP FOR SERVICES-II The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010601462024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) / m / [3331] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31416/2024 Between: 1.N1LLA RAMALINGAM, S/0 BALAVEERAYYA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC HOSTEL WELFARE OFFICER GR-LL, GOVT., SW BOYS HOSTEL, PENTAPADU, WEST GODAVARI, R/0. D.NO., 13-11- 15, TADEPALLIGUDEM, KOBBARITHOTA, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU. 2.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, ELURU. 3.THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, AP, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4.THE STATE OF A P, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, 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 pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Gr-I (HWO) without reference to the disciplinary ■''.proceedings / charge memo pending against him vide Charge Memo Proc., \ 2 Rc. NO.A2/243/2019 dt 01.11.2019 , as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of consequently, direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Gr-I (HWO), without reference India and to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memo pending against him from the date of his eligibility with all service and monetary benefits and to pass s 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 direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Gr-I (HWO), without reference disciplinary proceedings pending against him pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II to to the 2. The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri P.Amarender, learned counsel for the Sri Sarath, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll for respondents 1 to 4. petitioner and appearing 2. Petitioner, Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-ll, filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Hostel Welfare Officer Grade-1 (HWO), due to the pendency of the charge memo vide Rc.No.A2/243/2019, dated 01.11.2019 (Ex.P2), as illegal and arbitrary. I V r- 3 A charge memo vide Rc.No.A2/243/2019, dated 01.11.2019 (Ex.P2) was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted written defence/explanation dated 31.01.2020 (Ex.P3). An inquiry officer was appointed vide Rc.No.A2/243/2019, dated 21.02.2020 (Ex.P4). The inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report to the disciplinary authority vide Rc.No.845/2021/D, dated 04.08.2021 (Ex.P5). Thereafter, a seniority list was prepared vide Rc.No.BI/101/2020, dated 07.08.2020 (Ex.P6). In the seniority list, the petitioner was shown at SI.No.27. The petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground of the pendency of a vigilance case. However, the employees at SI.Nos.39 and 43 were promoted. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, despite submitting the inquiry report by the inquiry officer (Ex.P5), the disciplinary authority has not concluded the inquiry. Learned counsel would also submit that the inquiry authority failed to adhere to the timelines fixed in G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll would submit that the inquiry will be concluded in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 5. 6. As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the issuance of a charge memo {Ex.P2), written defence/explanation submitted by the petitioner (Ex.P3) and the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer (Ex.P5). Even after completion of three years after submitting the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority has not passed any order and concluded the inquiry. In para-4 of the affidavit, it was specifically pleaded that a seniority list was prepared (Ex.P6) and two employees’ juniors to the petitioners who are placed at SI.Nos.39 and 43 were promoted, ignoring the petitioner, though the petitioner was shown at SI.No.27. \ \ X 4 In State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lai Goyal\ the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: 7. " same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately. ” 8. In The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and another V. A.RaJeswara Reddy, Deputy Collector^ the Division Bench of Composite High Court observed as follows: ' S/nce the petitioners did not complete the departmental proceedings against the respondent even after lapse of more than and half years, the Tribunal has rightly directed consideration of the case of the respondent for promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, and no interference is called for with the said order. ’’ one Ordinarily, an employee will not be considered for promotion if disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him based allegations. However, an employee cannot be denied promotion by keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods. 9. on serious 10. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and thereafter G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, fixing timelines to conclude the inquiry. The charge memo dated 01.11.2019 (Ex.P2) and the inquiry officer submitted the report to the disciplinary authority dated 04.08.2021 (Ex.P5). Even after three years of the report, the disciplinary ^ (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 2010 (4) ALT 374 / 9 5 authority has not passed any order and concluded the inquiry. The lapses on the part of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner shall not be penalized. 1 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondents 1 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if the petitioner’s case is in the zone of consideration, without reference to the aforementioned charge memo vide Rc.No.A2/243/2019, dated 01.11.2019 (Ex.P2) as and when DPC is conducted as per the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. r As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- V SAVITHRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC FFICER To 1. The District Collector, Eluru, Eluru District 2. The Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Eluru. 3. The Director of Social Welfare, AP, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, State of A.P., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 5. One CC to Sri Poodattu Amarender, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CC’s to GP for Services-ll, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb / \\ \ HIGH COURT \ \ N DATED;02/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.31416 of 2024 t 11| FEB 2025 m Of O^ Curreni oeciion ^y ^ P^SPATO'^^ the stage ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS OF