::1:: APHC010041382026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 2411/2026 Between: 1. D. CHAITANYA,, S/O. OMKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (FAC) ITDA, RAMPACHODAVARAM, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, R/O. GOVT., QUARTERS, NEAR PMRC, RAMPACHODAVARAM ALLURI SEETHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF A P, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522502 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPT., REVENUE COLONY, LABBI PETA, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-522001 ...RESPONDENT(S): ::2:: This Court made the following ORDER: 1. 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. 08.11.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memo pending against him, from the date of their eligibility, with all service and monetary benefits and to pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 18.07.2017. The 2nd Respondent issued a charge memo dated 08.11.2024 alleging procedural irregularities in connection with the construction of additional infrastructure facilities to the APTW Residential Junior College for Girls at Busarajupalli Village, Buttaigudem Mandal, West Godavari District. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 28.11.2024 denying the allegations and requested dropping of further action, and also made another representation dated 03.10.2025. However, the disciplinary proceedings are still pending without ::3:: finalization. Meanwhile, a tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers for the panel years 2016–17 to 2023– 24 was prepared, wherein the petitioner is placed at Sl. No. 2 in the panel year 2016–17 of AEE’s of Zone–I. The petitioner, though fully eligible and falling within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, is likely to be excluded from consideration solely on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, despite the existence of several vacancies and initiation of the promotion process by the respondents. Hence the writ petition. 4. As seen from the material available on record, the charge memo dated 08.11.2024 is pending against the petitioner; however, the inquiry has not been completed till date. 5. In Rajeswara Reddy’s case, at para No.6, 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.” 6. Ordinarily, an employee is not considered for promotion when disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him on serious allegations. ::4:: However, an 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 petitioner cannot be penalized. 7. 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 petitioner for promotion, if he is within the zone of consideration, without reference to the charge memo dated 08.11.2024. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Dt:29.01.2026 klk ::5:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.2411 of 2026 Dt:29.01.2026 klk 229