APHC010022692026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 1640/2026 Between: 1. SEERAM SIMHACHALAM, S/O. APPA RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (FAC) TRIBAL WELFARE SUB-DIVISION, PADERU. R/O. NEW ITDA STAFF QUARTERS, QUARTER NO. 2, PADERU, ALLURI SEETHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT - 531024 2. CHALLA SHYAM PRASAD,, S/O. CHALLA SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIBAL WELFARE, PANCHIPENTA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT. R/O. 511, KVR AVENUE, SRI SAI NAGAR COLONY, SALURU 535591 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ENGINEERLNCHIEF, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPT., REVENUE COLONY, LABBI PETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) , THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 1640/2026 SEERAM SIMHACHALAM, S/O. APPA RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (FAC) TRIBAL WELFARE DIVISION, PADERU. R/O. NEW ITDA STAFF QUARTERS, QUARTER NO. 2, PADERU, ALLURI SEETHA RAMA RAJU SHYAM PRASAD,, S/O. CHALLA SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIBAL WELFARE, PANCHIPENTA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT. R/O. 511, KVR AVENUE, SRI SAI NAGAR COLONY, SALURU ...PETITIONER(S) AND OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE ENGINEERLNCHIEF, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPT., REVENUE COLONY, LABBI PETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA ...RESPOND 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3208] SEERAM SIMHACHALAM, S/O. APPA RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (FAC) TRIBAL WELFARE DIVISION, PADERU. R/O. NEW ITDA STAFF QUARTERS, QUARTER NO. 2, PADERU, ALLURI SEETHA RAMA RAJU SHYAM PRASAD,, S/O. CHALLA SATYAM, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIBAL WELFARE, PANCHIPENTA MANDAL, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM DISTRICT. R/O. 511, KVR AVENUE, SRI SAI NAGAR COLONY, SALURU - ...PETITIONER(S) OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE ENGINEERLNCHIEF, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPT., REVENUE COLONY, LABBI PETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA ...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 particularly one 2 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer, on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo in Procgs. No. CB3/167/C. 2483508/Complaint Inq.Report/2021, dt 25.10.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioners to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memo pending against them, from the date of their eligibility, with all service and monetary benefits and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Petitioners for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo in Procgs. No.CB3/167/C. 2483508/Complaint Inq.Report/2021, dt: 25.10.2024, pending against them pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 3 This Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer, on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo in Procgs. No. CB3/167/C. 2483508/Complaint Inq.Report/2021, dt 25.10.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioners to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memo pending against them, from the date of their eligibility, with all service and monetary benefits and to pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The 1st petitioner was appointed as Work Inspector on 07.01.1985 and was subsequently promoted up to the post of Assistant Engineer, and placed in full additional charge as Deputy Executive Engineer on 31.01.2021. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 17.07.2017 in the Tribal Engineering Department. 4. The 2nd respondent issued suspension orders dated 19.08.2024 alleging irregularities in construction works relating to Government RITI, Bhadragiri (V), GL Puram (M), Vizianagaram District, and a charge memo dated 25.10.2024 was issued framing charges against both petitioners. They submitted explanations on 06.11.2024 denying the allegations and were 4 reinstated on 06.02.2025. However, the disciplinary proceedings are still pending without appointment of an Enquiry Officer or finalization. 5. Meanwhile, the final seniority list for the panel years 2013-14 to 2023-24 was issued, wherein the 1st Petitioner is placed at Sl. No. 14 in the AE list of Zone-I and the 2nd Petitioner at Sl. No. 2 in the AEE list. Though fully eligible and within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, they are likely to be denied promotion solely due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, despite availability of vacancies and initiation of the promotion process. Hence, the writ petition. 6. As seen from the material available on record, the charge memo dated 25.10.2024 is pending against the petitioners. However, the inquiry has not been completed till date. 7. In Government of Andhra Pradesh & Another v. A. Rajeswara Reddy, Deputy Collector, Hyderabad : 2010 (4) ALT 374 (DB), the Division Bench of Composite High Court held in para No.6 as under: “…..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 is not considered for promotion when disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him on serious allegations. However, an 5 employee cannot be denied promotion by keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods. 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 (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, prescribing timelines for conclusion of disciplinary enquiries. In the present case, the respondent authorities have failed to adhere to the timelines fixed under the said Government Orders. For the lapse on the part of the disciplinary authority, the petitioners cannot be penalized. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion, if they are within the zone of consideration, without reference to the charge memo dated 25.10.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 31.01.2026 DSV 6 220 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 1640/2026 Dated: 31.01.2026 DSV 7