IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 93 OF 207/^ AMARAVATI Between: L. Varalakshmi, D/o Tata (Late), Aged about Welfare Officer, Prakasham District, R/o. Kota (M), Vijayanagaram District. 50 years, Occ- District Tribal H.No.7-1027, Dharmavaram (V), S. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Director of Tribal Welfare, AP, Vijayawada, Krishna District, n - . ^ Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The State of A.P., ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution that in the circumstances stated Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for to the post of Dy. Director (Tribal Welfare) without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memo pending against her vide Charge Memo Proc., Rc. No.{1509334)SOW03- 27021 (31)/9/2021-1 SEC dt- 25.03.2022, as illegal, arbitrary discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution Respondents to promote the Petitioner of India is filed praying in the affidavit filed therewith, the High the action of -- promotion of India and consequently, direct the to the post of Dy. Director (Tribal Welfare), without reference to the disciplinary pending against her. lA NO: 1 OF proceedings / charge memo Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the m support of the petition, the High to consider the case of the post of Dy. Director (Tribal Welfare), without proceedi^s pending against her pending circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents Petitioner for promotion to the reference to the disciplinary disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POODATTU Counsel for the Respondents: GP The Court made the following: ORDER AMARENDER for services II APHC010604012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) w a SMB [3331] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 93/2025 Between; I.L. VARALAKSHMI,, D/0 TATA (LATE), AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRAKASHAM OCC- DISTRICT TRIBAL WELFARE OFFICER DISTRICT, VIJAYANAGARAM DISTRICT. R/0. R/0. H.NO.7-1027, DHARMAVARAM (V), S. KOTA (M) ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE DIRECTOR OF TRIBAL WELFARE, AP, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2.THE STATE OF A P, , REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL 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 may be 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 Dy. Director (Tribal Welfare) without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memo pending against her vide Charge Memo Proc., Rc. No.(1509334)SOW03- 27021 (31 )/9/2021-1 SEC dt- 2 and violative of Articles 14^16 direct the Respondents Welfare), without pending against her discriminatory and consequently . Director (Tribal illegal, arbitrary o Constitution of India the Petitioner to the pos disciplinary proceedings 25.03.2022, as and 21 of the to promote - reference to the and to pass / charge memo stated ,ANoaSE2S25 and to pass petition affidavit filed in be pleased for promotion to the disciplinary of the above writ petition in the may Petitioner direct the to to reference disposal counsel for the petitioner: amarender 1.POODATTU Counsel for the 1.GP Respondent(S): for services The Court made the following order; Heard Sd PAiaa.aeder, laa.nad Sr, sareld, respondents 1 and 2. and the petitioner Services-ll appe^ting counsel for Pleader for to for above writ petition for promotion of the I SEC, dated Officer, filed the District Tribal Welfare to Petitioner, her case in not considering 2. of respondents Director (Tribal No.(1509334).SOW03 the pendency declare the action Welfare), due to -27021 (31 )/9/202l- post of Deputy vide Rc. the charge memo 25.03.2022 (Ex.P1) , as illegal and arbitrary. -1 SOW03-27021(31V9f2021 the petitioner. Petitioner ,2022 (EX.P2). An inquiry Rc.No.(1 509334). issued to dated 05.11 vide memo 03.2022 (Ex.P1) defence/exptanation A charge SEC, dated 25. submitted written 3. was 3 officer was appointed vide Rc.No.1509334.SOW03-27021(31)/9/2021- l SEC. dated 20.09.2023 (Ex.P4). A seniority list was prepared vide Rc.No.SOW03- 13021 (31 )/53/2020-A SEC, dated 03.11.2024 (Ex.P6). In the seniority list, the petitioner was shown at SI.No.2. The petitioner was not considered for promotion on the grounds of the pendency of the ACB case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the disciplinary authority has not concluded the inquiry, despite 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. 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. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the issuance of a charge memo (Ex.PI), and the written defence/explanation submitted by the petitioner (Ex.P2). However, the inquiry is not concluded so far. The charge memo is dated 25.03.2022 (Ex.PI). In State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lai Goyal\ the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows; 7. “ At the 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. ” ^ (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 4 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: 8. “ Since the petitioners did not compiete the departmental proceedings against the respondent even after lapse of more than one 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.” Ordinarily, an employee will not be considered for promotion if disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him based on serious allegations. However, an employee cannot be denied promotion by keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods. 9. 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. As noted supra, even after two years, in the case at hand, the respondent authorities failed to complete the inquiry. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioner is not cooperating with the inquiry and hence the inquiry was delayed. The lapses on the part of the respondent authority, the petitioner shall not be penalized. 10. 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 to consider the case of the petitioner for 11. ^2010 (4) ALT 374 % promotion, if the petitioners case is in the zone of consideration, without reference to the aforementioned charge memo vide Rc.No.(1509334) . SOW03 -27021(31 )/9/2021-I SEC, dated 25.03.2022 (Ex.PI) as and when DPC is conducted as per the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. K-KASI RAO ACHARI assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Director of Tribal Welfare, AP, Vijayawada, Krishna District. wragr;:d?a'unfrfr'^^7ct. Oepanrr,ent. Secretariat, 3. One CC to Sri Poodattu Amarender Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CCs to GP for Services II, 5. Three CD Copies TF k HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.93 of 2025 X 2 9 JAN 2025 ^ Current Section %4£eSPATCVAi5^ ml! DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE ADMISSION, WITHOUT COSTS OF