IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 4^ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 17514 OF 2019 / Between: K.Swarajya Lakshmi, W/o. P.Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 50 years, Panchayat Secretary Grade-ll, Gram Panchayat, Eletipadu, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, Eluru. 2. The Director, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, A.P., Nakkala Road, Suryaraopeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi. ...Respondents z' 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 declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing posting orders to the petitioner as Panchyat Secretary Grade -I pursuant to her promotion to the said post vide Proc.No. 9033/CPR and RD/B1/2015, dated 10-12-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent while issuing promotion orders to her juniors who were promoted along with the petitioner to the said post without any justification or reasonable cause even though no disciplinary case ,s pending as on the date of promotion of , the petitioner is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entilted for issuing posting orders as Panchayat Secretary Grade-1 with all consequential and attendant benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 case of the petitioner for issuing posting orders as Panchayat Secretary Grade-1 pursuant to her promotion to the said post vide Proc.No. 9033/CPR and RD/BI/2015, dated 10-12-2015 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI. G SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV ^ The Court made the following order: APHC010362842019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 17514/2019 Between: K.Swarajya Lakshmi, ...PETITIONER AND The Collector And District Magistrate and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: ...RESPONDENT{S) 1.G SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I (AP) 2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “...to issue a Writ order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus dectaring the action of the respondents in not issuing posting orders to the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary Grade i pursuant to her promotion to the said post vide Proc. No. 9033/CPR and RD/B1/2015 dated 10.12.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent while issuing promotion orders to her juniors who were promoted along with the petitioner to the said post without any justification or reasonable cause even though no disciplinary cases pending as on the date of promotion of the petitioner is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is ^.m ^ ' 2 entitled for issuing posting orders as Panchayat Secretary Grade-! with all consequential and attendant benefits...” Heard Sri G.Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the 2. learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was 3. initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 28.01.2004 and later promoted to the post of Panchayat Secretary Grade-ll (P.S.Gr-ll) on 08.09.2024. The post of P.S.Grade-! falls under C!ass-A, Category-! and it should be filled strictly by way of promotion on the basis of seniority as the Panchayat Secretary Grade-I is a non-selection post. While so, the 2"^ respondent issued proceedings dated 10.12.2015 wherein 24, Grade-ll, Panchayat Secretaries were promoted as Panchayat Secretaries -Grade-1 including the petitioner herein viz., SI.No.21. Though the petitioner was promoted to the said post, the posting order was not issued to the petitioner whereas, the remaining persons who are promoted to the said post were issued posting orders on 16.02.2016. Learned counsel would further submit that the 2'’^ respondent issued a charge memo against the petitioner vide Memo No.127/C.P.R & RD/BI/2016, dated 30.05.2016. The respondents also initiated criminal prosecution in Cr.No.27 of 2016 for the offence under Section 409, 420 of IPC of Penugonda P.S., for the same charges and both the proceedings are still pending. Learned counsel would further submit that as per Rule 5(b)(i) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the promotion to a non-selection post may be denied only if the incumbent is on currency of punishment on the date of consideration and in the present case, there was no currency of punishment as on the date of 3 issuing the posting order i.e., on 16.02.2016 to the other persons who promoted on 10.12.2015 with the petitioner. The said action of the respondents is contrary to the Rule 5(b)(i) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, are 1996. 4. To buttress his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3099 of 2017 dated 27.08.2021 wherein, it is held at para nos. 10, 11 & 12 as follows; "10. In the present case, the penalty Imposed on the respondent-employee in 2002 had been set aside by the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal was confirmed by this court. Though another disciplinary proceedings being C.NO.35/PR/2007 dated 08.6.2007 was pending against him at the time when the promotional panel was prepared in 2012, no penalty was imposed upon him till 2014. Hence the petitioner was denied promotion to a non-seiection post in 2012 on an erroneous premise that penalty had been imposed on him. While considering the representation of the respondent- empioyee as per interim direction of the Tribunal, the authorities again illegally denied him promotion by referring to a penalty imposed in 2014 i.e. after the date on which the promotional panel was prepared. 11. In New Bank of India vs. N.P.Sehgal and Anr Uhe Hon’ble Apex Court inter alia held that pendency of departmental enquiry is no bar for promotion of the Government empioyee, and that the punishment can be imposed even in the promoted post. 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the respondent-employee was illegally denied 1991 SCR (1)473 4 promotion in 2012 on an erroneous premise that he was Subsequent rejection of his suffering punishment, representation was also contrary to Rule 5(b)(i) of ‘the Rules’. 1 to interfere with the order of the Thus, we find no reason Tribunal and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs” Learned Assistant Government Pleader upon receipt of written 5. instructions would submit that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings No. 127/C.P.R & RD/B1/2016, dated 08.02.2016 of the Commissioner, PR & RD. Subsequently, she was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 06.04.2018 pending finalization of disciplinary proceedings. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the request of the petitioner will be considered after concluding and finalization of the disciplinary case pending against her as the charges framed against her are grave in nature. 6. Considering the submissions made, a fair look at the material on record and in the backdrop of the legal position referred supra, as rightly put by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as on the date of consideration of promotion, there is no punishment imposed by the department against the petitioner. In view of the above said decision of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. dated 27.08.2021, the pendency of the departmental proceedings shall not come in the way of consideration of promotion of non selection post. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for issuing posting orders as Panchayat Secretary Grade-1 with all consequential and attendant benefits. 3099 of 2017 5 W W 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FSECTION OFFICER To 1. The Collector and District Magistrate, West Godavari District, Eluru. KI ^ I ^ I Ncirxrxaici 2. The Director, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, A.P. Road, Suryaraopeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravathi. 4. One CC'to ^ri. G Seena Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CfCs'td GP for Panchayat Raj Rural Dev, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.17514 of 2019 S 2 • MAr 2025 O' *9' Current ^jecuon , ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS