P a g e | 1 APHC010579272023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 30217 OF 2023 Between: 1. K S M V KRISHNA RAO, S/o. K.V.Subba Rao, Aged. 55 years, Presently working as Regional Transport Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by The Principal Secretary to the Government, T R and B Department,A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi,Guntur District, PIN. 522238. 2. The Commissioner of Transport, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: C SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I P a g e | 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 30217 OF 2023 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the purported action of Respondents in seeking to deny the legitimate claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner, though he is fully eligible, qualified and within the zone of consideration, solely on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings since 10-07-2019 as illegal arbitrary, violation Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India …” 2. Heard Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri J.Nookapathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents. No counter is filed by the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are that: i. Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in the year 1994. Thereafter, he was promoted as Motor Vehicle Inspector in the year 1998, and subsequently as Regional Transport Officer on 27.06.2019. Claim of the petitioner is that he was fully eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner. ii. While things stood thus, on 10.07.2019, ACB officials conducted a surprise check at the office of the Regional Transport Office, Nandyal, Kurnool District, where the petitioner was working as Regional Transport Officer, and alleged that entire staff of the office had committed misconduct. Subsequently, after a lapse of three years, ACB authorities recommended P a g e | 3 initiation of departmental proceedings, particularly when no prosecution had been initiated either against the petitioner or against any of the employees of the Regional Transport Office, Ananthapur. iii. Accordingly, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.195, dated 28.07.2022, for conducting departmental proceedings. On the very same day, by way of G.O.Rt.No.196, the Government issued a charge memo calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. However, the relevant documents forming the basis for framing the charges were furnished to the petitioner only after a lapse of one year. Thereafter, petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.08.2023. iv. Case of petitioner is that though the alleged incident occurred on 10.07.2019, departmental proceedings were initiated only in the year 2022, after an inordinate delay of more than three years. Further, even after issuance of the charge memo, the relevant documents were furnished only after a considerable delay of nearly one year, thereby caused much prejudice to the petitioner in submitting his explanation. Though the petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.08.2023, no further progress in the disciplinary proceedings till date. v. In view of the pendency of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, respondents have kept the petitioner’s promotion pending on the ground that charges are pending against him and his juniors were considered for promotion. Though the respondents have filed written instructions, nothing has been placed on record indicating the present stage or progress of the P a g e | 4 disciplinary enquiry, except stating that a proposal was sent to the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), wherein the petitioner’s name was also included. However, it is not stated that the petitioner’s case was liable to be excluded or could not be considered on account of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. vi. The specific case of petitioner is that, while his juniors have been promoted to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner, his case alone has been deferred on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.P. Naidu v. General Manager, South Central Railway 1 and submitted that when disciplinary proceedings are initiated and when they are yet to be completed and it is not known whether the petitioner can be found to be guilty of the charges that may be framed against him, he cannot be punished even before that, through either withholding of his promotion or by non-consideration of his case for promotion. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner also placed reliance on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.8690 of 2016, wherein the relevant portion reads as under: 1 1982 SCC OnLine AP 86 P a g e | 5 “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. From the instructions reported by the learned Government Pleader, it is evident that till now enquiry officer has not been appointed. However, the said P.Mahaboob Khan, who is also facing the charges identical to that framed against the petitioner, has already been promoted. In these facts and circumstances, we feel that it would be unfair to deny promotion to the petitioner only on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner as and when the DPC is constituted without reference to the charges framed against him in the present case.” 6. Placing reliance on the above-said judgment, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long period, thereby denying promotion cannot be permitted and requested this Court to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as and when DPC is constituted without reference to the pending charges framed against him. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner also placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30247 of 2017, wherein the relevant portion reads as under: 4.Following the judgments of this Court, which have been consistently taking the view that a person cannot be deprived of consideration for promotion while keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Municipal petitioner, if any, shall be subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.” P a g e | 6 8. Placing reliance on the above-said judgment, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the Division Bench of this Court placing reliance on the judgment referred to above held that an employee cannot be deprived of consideration for promotion while keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner also placed reliance on three other judgments of this Court in W.P.No.11773 of 2020, W.P.No.12473 of 2020 and W.P.No.37720 of 2022, and submitted that petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, as the proceedings have been kept pending without any progress in conducting the enquiry. 10. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents submitted that the department will follow the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022, which lays down a comprehensive procedure for conducting disciplinary proceedings. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that mere delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings would not, by itself, vitiate the very proceedings itself. In the instant case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated pursuant to the surprise check conducted by the ACB officials, during which certain amounts were recovered from the office of the Regional Transport Office, wherein petitioner and staff members were held responsible. Accordingly, ACB authorities recommended initiation of departmental proceedings against them, P a g e | 7 pursuant to which impugned charge memo was issued. Therefore, the proceedings cannot be vitiated merely on the ground of delay in their conclusion. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022, prescribes a detailed procedure and fixed specific timelines for expeditious completion of disciplinary proceedings at various levels. As per the said G.O., departmental proceedings shall be completed within three months either by the Departmental Officers or Commissioner of Inquiries in all simple cases, whereas in complicated cases, it shall be ensured that inquiry should be completed within five to six months. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in LIC v. A. Masilamani2, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “18. The court/tribunal should not generally set aside the departmental enquiry, and quash the charges on the ground of delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings, as such a power is dehors the limits of judicial review. In the event that the court/tribunal exercises such power, it exceeds its power of judicial review at the very threshold. Therefore, a charge-sheet or show-cause notice, issued in the course of disciplinary proceedings, cannot ordinarily be quashed by the court. The same principle is applicable in relation to there being a delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case in question have to be examined taking into consideration the gravity/magnitude of charges involved therein. The essence of the matter is that the court must take into consideration all relevant facts and to balance and weigh the same, so as to determine if it is in fact in the interest of clean and 2 (2013) 6 SCC 530 P a g e | 8 honest administration, that the judicial proceedings are allowed to be terminated only on the ground of delay in their conclusion. (Vide State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma [(1987) 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 943] , State of M.P. v. Bani Singh [1990 Supp SCC 738 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 638 : (1991) 16 ATC 514 : AIR 1990 SC 1308] , Union of India v. Ashok Kacker [1995 Supp (1) SCC 180 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 374 : (1995) 29 ATC 145] , Prohibition & Excise Deptt. v. L. Srinivasan [(1996) 3 SCC 157 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 686 : (1996) 33 ATC 745] , State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan [(1998) 4 SCC 154 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1044 : AIR 1998 SC 1833] , M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India [(2006) 5 SCC 88 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 919 : AIR 2006 SC 3475] , Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 304] and Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha [(2012) 11 SCC 565 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 121 : AIR 2012 SC 2250] .” 13. Placing reliance on the above-said judgment, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that mere delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings cannot vitiate the very proceedings itself and the same cannot constitute a ground for quashing of the disciplinary proceedings. The Court must take into consideration the gravity or magnitude of the charges involved therein and the Court must take into account all relevant facts and must balance and weigh the same to determine whether it would be in the interest of clean and honest administration to terminate the proceedings solely on the ground of delay in their conclusion. In the instant case, proceedings are initiated based on the surprise check by the ACB officials and tracing certain unaccounted cash in the office. As such, there is no illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. 14. Considered the submissions made on either side and perused the record. P a g e | 9 As submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner, the incident of the year 2019 culminated in the issuance of a charge memo in the year 2022, and the said disciplinary proceedings are kept pending without any progress as on today. Though respondents have placed on record the instructions dated 20.11.2023, the said instructions do not speak anything about the pending proceedings before the disciplinary authority and is only talking about the conduct of DPC and placement of petitioner’s name before the DPC. However, petitioner was not promoted and the departmental proceedings have continued to remain pending without any further development. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record an additional set of material papers relating to various proceedings, and contended that petitioner was entrusted with Full Additional Charge (FAC) to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner and was also appointed as the Presenting Officer in several disciplinary proceedings which establishes petitioner’s integrity. 16. As stated above, petitioner’s involvement in the alleged incident is yet to be established in the pending departmental proceedings and keeping the said proceedings pending for a considerable period without bringing them to their logical conclusion and, consequently, denying promotion to the petitioner would cause serious prejudice to him and would, in effect, amount to subjecting him to a penalty even before the conclusion of the enquiry and determination of his guilt, which cannot be permitted. At the same time, mere P a g e | 10 delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings cannot, by itself, be a ground to set aside the proceedings or to exonerate the petitioner from the charges, unless the proceedings are duly concluded in accordance with law. Therefore, to strike balance and protect petitioner from undue prejudice on account of the prolonged pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are required to be concluded at the earliest, failing which, the same shall not come in the way of petitioner’s promotion to the post of next higher cadre as per his seniority. 17. In view of the foregoing reasons, writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, respondents shall consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the next higher post without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 28.09.2026 Dvs P a g e | 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 168 WRIT PETITION NO: 30217 OF 2023 Date: 28.09.2026 Dvs