APHC010107962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 5686/2025 Between: P V Ramalingeshwar ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, MA & ;UD Department and Others. ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RANGARAJULA RAJASEKHARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in continuing the disciplinary proceedings initiated vide Charge Memo bearing G.O. Rt. No.166, M.A. and U.D. (Vig.III-1) Dept., dated 29/03/2022 for the incident of 2015-2016, as there is a delay in initiation and also continuation for a long time is totally ex facie illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and void though he is not at all worked during that period of execution of work and set aside the same and consequently, direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion 2 CGR, J. W.P.No.5686 of 2025 as Special Grade Commissioner with all consequential benefits….” 2. Petitioner is presently working as Municipal Commissioner Grade-I and he is eligible and qualified for consideration for promotion as Special Grade Municipal Commissioner as per the seniority list published vide G.O.Rt.No.126, dated 21.02.2025. Charge Memo, vide G.O.Rt. No.166, M.A. & U.D. (Vig.III-1) Department, dated 29.03.2022, was issued to petitioner in relation to an incident happened in the year 2015-16. Petitioner submitted explanation on 18.04.2022. Enquiry came to be conducted and enquiry officer has submitted report to the 1st respondent stating that charges are not proved. However, the 1st respondent disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued dissent note, vide Memo.No.869710/ Vig.III/2019, dated 25.07.2024 and called upon to submit explanation and petitioner accordingly submitted detailed explanation on 19.09.2024, inspite of which, the enquiry has not been completed so far. 3. Heard Sri R. Rajasekhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondents are effecting promotions, as petitioner is undergoing 3 CGR, J. W.P.No.5686 of 2025 departmental enquiry, his candidature is not being considered in spite of he being eligible and shown as No.1 in the seniority list. He would place reliance on the order, dated 16.12.2024, in which, this Court, in similar circumstances, has directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner therein for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer without reference to charge memo, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, and prays to pass similar order in this writ petition also. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents would submit that enquiry is pending, as petitioner’s explanation to the dissent note of the disciplinary authority is under consideration and that the enquiry would be concluded as expeditiously as possible. 6. Facts narrated above would indicate that the incident has happened in the year 2015-16 and whereas the disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated in the year 2022 and further that the enquiry officer has found nothing incriminating against the petitioner and recommended to drop the proceedings, however, based on dissent note, proceedings are being continued. For the delay on the part of the 4 CGR, J. W.P.No.5686 of 2025 respondents in concluding the enquiry, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and penalized. 7. Following the view expressed by this Court in B.Nagesh Babu v. State of A.P.1, the present writ petition is disposed of in the following terms. 8. The writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Special Grade Municipal Commissioner subject to the petitioner possessing requisite qualification without reference to charge memo, vide G.O.Rt. No.166, M.A. & U.D. (Vig.III-1) Department, dated 29.03.2022, or the dissent note, vide Memo.No.869710/Vig.III/2019, dated 25.07.2024, in terms of G.O.Ms. No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date:06.03.2025. cs 1 Order, dated 16.12.2024, in W.P.No.29618 (A.P. H.C.)