IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1462 OF 2025 Between: D. Sankara reddy, S/o D. Chandrasekhara Reddy Aged 55 years, Working as E.E (R and B) APRDC, Kurnool, R/o Flat.No. 306, Srinilayam apartment, C block, Joharapuram road, Kurnool. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, TR and B Department, A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn), Road and Buildings Department Vijayawada, Krishna District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondent in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in R and B Department, on mere pendency of Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No 342 dated 11-11-2021, issued by the 1st respondent, denial of promotion is illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary, consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer without reference to the Charge p memo vide G.O.Rt.No. 342 dated 11-11-2021, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 257 dated 10-06-1999, on the same anology of similar directions of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P. No. 25098 Of 2024, which following the reported judgment of the Division Bench Govt of A.P rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Vs. A. Rajeswara Reddy G.O.Ms.No. 679, dated. 01-11-2008. were granted by duly and lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in R and B Department in the existing vacancy, without reference to the Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.342 dated 11-11-2021 in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 257 dated 10-06-1999 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER ) APHC010026802025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ u [3331] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 1462/2025 Between: 1.D. SANKARA REDDY, S/0 D. CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY AGED 55 YEARS, WROKING AS E.E (R AND B) APRDC, KURNOOL, R/0 C BLOCK, FLAT.NO. 306, SRINILAYAM APARTMENT, JOHARAPURAM ROAD, KURNOOL. ...PETITIONER AND PRINCIPAL A.P. SECRETARIAT 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, TR AND B DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE ENGINEERINCHIEF ADMN, ROAD AND DEPARTMENT VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. BUILDINGS ...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 a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondent in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in R and B Department, on mere pendency of Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No 342 dated 11-11-2021, issued by the 1st respondent, denial of w 2 m promotion is illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and contrary, consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer without reference to the Charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No. 342 dated 11-11-2021, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 257 dated 10-06-1999, on the same analogy of similar directions of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P. No. 25098 Of 2024, which were granted by duly following the reported judgment of the Division Bench Govt of A.P rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department Vs. A. Rajeswara Reddy and G.O.Ms.No. 679, dated. A. Rajeswara Reddy and G.O.Ms.No. 679, dated. 1-11-2008, and pass such lA 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 consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in R and B Department in the existing vacancy, without reference to the Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.342 dated 11-11-2021, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 257 dated 10-06-1999 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Chilamkurthi Satya Dev Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sarath, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appeared for the respondents. The petitioner. Executive Engineer (R&B) APRDC, Kurnool filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s candidature for promotion to the post of Superintending 2. «- 3 ) Engineer in R&B Department due to the pendency of a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.342 Transport Roads & Buildings (VIG-R&B) Department, dated 11.11.2021, as illegal and arbitrary. A charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.342 Transport Roads & Buildings (VIG- R&B) Department, dated 11.11.2021 (Ex.P.1) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a written defence dated 16.05.2022 (Ex.P.2). Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed vide Memo No.123217A/ig (R&B)/2016, dated 05.09.2022. However, the inquiry has not been completed so far. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is eligible for promotion, his case was not considered due to the pendency of the aforementioned charge memo. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on instructions, would submit that the respondent authorities will consider the petitioner’s candidature in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. 5. The Government issued 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 fixing the timeline to complete the inquiry in three months and six months in simple and complicated cases respectively. 6. In the case at hand, a charge memo Ex.P.1 was issued to the petitioner in December 2021 and the petitioner submitted a written defence on 16.05.2022 and thereafter. Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were 7. ' N I 4 appointed on 05.09.2022. Despite the timeline fixed in the G.Os, for the reasons best known, the inquiry has not been completed so far. In State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lai Goyal\ the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: 8. “ 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. ” 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: 9. “ Since the petitioners did not complete 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. ” 10. •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. The respondent authorities’ lapses in concluding the inquiry, despite the government orders ^ (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 ^010(4) ALT 374 ■'..V1.L 5 referred to supra, the petitioner shall not be victimized. The lapses on the part of the respondent authority in concluding the inquiry, the petitionershall not be victimized. 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 respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s candidature for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, if the petitioner’s case is in the zone of consideration, without reference to the aforementioned charge memo, whenever DPC is constituted. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTA^REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// r To. ^ Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, TR and B Department, A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The Engineer-in-Chief (Admn) Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. One CC to SRI CHILAMKURTHI SATYA DEV NAIDU Advocate [OPUC] [OUT?^^ SERVICES II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 5. Three CD Copies Road and Buildings Department high court DATED;22/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1462 of 2025 g 14 FEB 2B25 m ^ . Current Section , admissiSS, wmou^co^STr^ stage of