1 APHC010156742026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 8171/2026 Between: 1. M NAGI REDDY, S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED . 60 YEARS, OCC. DY. MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PEDANA MANDAL, PEDANA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. R/O. H.NO.16-128, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT-521301. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (VIG.L)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522238 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522501 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM -521001 ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings No.2891890/CPR and RD/A1/2025, dt.11.09.2025 of the 2nd respondent is rejected the request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO pending disciplinary proceedings in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dt.10.06.1999 and not finalize the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.679, dt.01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91, dt.12.09.2022 and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO without reference to the Pending Charge Memo No.1829333/CPR and RD/B1/2022. Dt.04.07.2023 and to finalize the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner with all consequential benefits and 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 suspend the proceedings No.2891890/CPR&RD/A1/2025, dt.11.09.2025 of the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO without reference to the Pending Charge Memo NO.1829333/CPR&RD/B1/2022. Dt.04.07.2023 or to finalize the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SRINIVASULA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO pending disciplinary proceedings in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading for filing the Writ Petition are as follows:- The Petitioner was initially appointed as Typist on 28.09.1987 and thereafter he was promoted as Sr. Assistant and thereafter promoted as EO PR & RD in the year 2013 and posted to MPDO Office, Nandivada, Krishna District and thereafter he was transferred and posted at Pedaparipudi MPDO Office in the year 2017. While so, the 2nd respondent has issued charge memo dated 04.07.2023 under Rule 20 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 on the allegation that while the petitioner was working as DLPO on FAC basis, he had dereliction of duties. 3. The Petitioner had submitted detailed representations on 27.11.2023, 07.08.2024 and 11.11.2024. It is submitted that when 4 the respondents not allowed the petitioner to join in the promotional post, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.13084 of 2025 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. But when the respondent did not comply the order of this Court, the petitioner had filed Contempt Case No.2717 of 2025 before this Court. After filing the contempt case, the respondents considered and rejected the request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO in terms of para (6) of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Aggrieved by the rejection of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri G. Srinivasula Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II for the Respondents. 5. During hearing, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that though the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of MPDO, the respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. Despite long lapse of several years, the Respondents have not concluded the disciplinary proceedings. By virtue of pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the 5 Respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO. 6. Considering the submissions made, this Court opined that even after lapse of two years, the Respondents did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings is quite contrary to the instructions in Clause 5(ix) issued vide G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, which reads as follows:- “ix. Government direct that in all simple cases the inquiry initiated against Government Servant shall be completed within three months either by Departmental Officers or Commissioner of Inquiries. In complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the inquiry should be completed within five to six months. The Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the inquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the stipulated time to Chief Secretary to Government and also the Chief Minster.” 7. Whereas in the instant case, it is very clear that even after lapse of two years, the Respondents did not conclude the disciplinary proceedings. In that view this Court without touching the merits of the case, considering the submissions made by counsel on 6 both sides, inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, while directing the Respondents to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the respondents failed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of MPDO without reference to the charge memo, if he is otherwise eligible as per rules and seniority. 8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date:30.03.2026 GK 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH 47 WRIT PETITION NO:8171 of 2026 Dated:30.03.2026 GK