1 APHC010129872026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 7041/2026 Between: 1. K.MADHAVILATHA, ,W/O DURGA SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, O/O SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, PEDANA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE (REGN, I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, , GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P. 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, ELURU, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Respondents in belatedly initiating and continuing disciplinary proceedings in relation to allegations pertaining to the year 2018 vide Charge Memo issued in G.O.Ms.No.752 Revenue (Vigilance -II) Department dated 16-09-2022 issued by the 1st Respondent and further denying promotion to Petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant, which is a non-selection post on the said ground, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by delay, contrary to the time limit stipulated for completion of enquiries in G.O. Ms. No. 91 dated 12-09-2022 and provisions of Rule 5(b) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same accordingly and further be pleased to declare that Petitioner is entitled to have his case considered and be promoted as Senior Assistant without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending vide Charge Memo issued in G.O.Ms.No.752 Revenue (Vigilance -II) Department dated 16-09-2022 issued by the 1st Respondent on the analogy of orders issued in similar cases including Order dated 10-02-2026 passed in W.P. No. 3873 of 2026 with benefits incidental and ancillary thereto and to pass such 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 may be pleased to direct Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on the analogy of orders passed in similar cases including W.P. No. 3873 of 2026 dated 10-02-2026 without reference to Charge Memo issued in G.O.Ms.No.752 Revenue (Vigilance -II) Department dated 16-09-2022 issued by the 1st Respondent in relation to allegations relating to the year 2018 and in terms of Rule 5 (b) of AP State and Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1996 and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in belatedly initiating and continuing disciplinary proceedings in relation to allegations pertaining to the year 2018 vide Charge Memo issued in G.O.Ms.No.752 Revenue Vigilance-II Department dated 16.09.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent and further denying promotion to Petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant which is a nonselection post on the said ground as being arbitrary illegal vitiated by delay contrary to the time limit stipulated for completion of enquiries in G.O.Ms. No. 91 dated 12.09.2022 and provisions of Rule 5b of A P State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same accordingly and further be pleased to declare that Petitioner is entitled to have his case considered and be promoted as Senior Assistant without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending vide Charge Memo issued in G.O.Ms.No.752 Revenue Vigilance-II Department dated 16.09.2022 issued by the 1st Respondent on the analogy of orders issued in similar cases including Order dated 10.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.3873 of 2026 with benefits incidental and ancillary thereto and to pass such orders. 4 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Junior Assistant in the Registration & Stamps Department in the year 2010. The petitioner is eligible, qualified and within Zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, which is a non-selection post but for the charges pending against him vide G.O.Rt.No.752 Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department dated 16.09.2022 in relation to allegations pertaining to March, 2018. While doing so, ACB has caused surprise check on 12.03.2018 on the office of Sub Registrar, Avanigadda and thereafter after lapse of four years, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and two others and common enquiry was ordered, however, there has been no progress in the disciplinary proceedings thereafter. While so, in the list of Junior Assistants eligible for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistants, the name of the petitioner at Sl.No.2 and in the remakrs column the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is mentioned and names of others are recommended for promotion. The petitioner immediately submitted a representation to the respondents on 02.01.2026 requesting them to consider his case for promotion to the cadre of Senior Assistant. However, the petitioner’s case has not been considered solely on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition. 5 4. The issue involved in the present case has already been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.550 of 2022 (State of A.P. vs. Ch. Venkata Rao), wherein it was held as follows- “4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services I has referred to G.O.Ms.No.66 General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 30.01.1991 to contend that when charges of misconduct are framed by the competent authority and served on the concerned delinquent officer, or a charge sheet has been filed against him in criminal court, his case for promotion is required to be deferred. 5. We have heard Mr. Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services I appearing for the appellants and Mr. G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, and perused the material available on record. The learned single Judge has referred to the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Secretary, Home Department vs. Motupalli Narasimha Raju (W.P.No.3099 of 2017), dated 27.08.2021, to hold that G.O.Ms.No.424 GA (Ser.C) department, dated 25.05.1976 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, who is a constable and it is applicable to the selection post falling under Rule 5(a) and Rule 6 of the Rules, 1996, and the said G.O., does not come in the way of the petitioner to claim promotion during pendency of the departmental proceedings and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed for. 7. 7. In the Division Bench judgment in Motupalli Narasimha Raju (supra), a Coordinate Bench has held that the post of Head Constable is a non-selection post for the purposes of promotion and therefore, in view of Rule 5(b)(i) of the Rules, 1996, the promotion can be deferred only upon imposition of penalty and not otherwise. It has also been held that the additional embargo, if any created under a G.O., which is not issued in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, would not override Rule 5(b)(i) of the Rules, which clearly states that promotion to a non-selection post may be denied only if the incumbent is subjected to a penalty and not otherwise. Thus, neither G.O.Ms.No.424, GA (Ser.C) department, dated 25.05.1976 nor G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration 6 (Services.C) department, dated 30.01.1991 would come in the way of the writ petitioner to claim relief of promotion as has been held by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal has no substance and it deserves to be dismissed. 5. Following the said ratio laid down by the Division Bench, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.21608 of 2024 disposed of the writ petition in similar terms. The said legal position is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if he is otherwise within the zone of consideration, in terms of Rule 5(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, without reference to the Articles of Charges pending against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.752 Revenue (Vigilance-II) Department dated 16.09.2022. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _____________ D. RAMESH,J Date:12.03.2026 Gk. 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. RAMESH 30 WRIT PETITION No.7041 OF 2026 Date:12.03.2026 Gk