APHC010079092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4207/2025 Between: T V Krishna Kumari ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents 1 & 2. 2. The petitioner, Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Narasaraopet Mandal, filed the above writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Divisional Development Officer / Deputy Chief Executive Officer due to the pendency of charge memos dated 03.01.2012 and 13.02.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent, as illegal and arbitrary. 2 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Extension Officer through APPSC in 1996. Thereafter, promoted to MPDO in the year 1999 and has been discharging his duties. Be that as it may, two charge memos vide11931/CPR & RE/A3/2011 dated 03.01.2012 and 13821/CPR & RE/A3/2011 dated 13.02.2012 (Exs.P.1 and P.3) were issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation in respect of the first charge memo on 25.11.2015 (Ex.P.2). The petitioner also submitted an explanation in respect of the second charge memo vide Ex.P.4. However, the inquiry has not been completed so far. Due to the pendency of the aforementioned charge memos, the petitioner’s case has not been considered for promotion. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would submit that the inquiry will be completed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022. 5. 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 (Services-C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 fixing the timelines to complete inquiry in three months and six months in simple and complicated cases respectively. Despite the timelines fixed in the aforementioned Government Orders, for the reasons best known, the inquiry in respect of the aforementioned charge memos has not been completed so far. 6. In State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lal Goyal1, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows: “……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 1 (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 3 enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately.” 7. In The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and another v. A.Rajeswara Reddy, Deputy Collector2, the Division Bench of Composite High Court observed as follows: “…..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.” 8. 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. For the fault on the part of the disciplinary authority, in not concluding the inquiry, the petitioner shall not be penalized. 9. In the case at hand, as observed supra, the charge memos are of the year 2012, a decade has lapsed; however, the inquiry has not been completed so far. 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 respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Divisional Development Officer/ Deputy 2 2010 (4) ALT 374 4 Chief Executive Officer, if the petitioner’s case is in the zone of consideration, without reference to the aforementioned charge memos and pass appropriate orders as and when DPC is constituted. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 19.02.2025 KA 5 456 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4207/2025 Date: 19.02.2025 KA