1 APHC010580382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 29829/2025 Between: 1. G VENKATESU, S/O TIRUMALADASU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. PRINCIPAL SECRETORY REVENUE (SER. I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION CCLA, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL. 4. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR L A KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.29829 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in initiating the disciplinary proceedings based on the press report and not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector though he is fully qualified and eligible for promotion to the said post, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that initially the respondents have initiated departmental proceedings against him. Based on the allegations reported in a news item published in Eenadu Telugu daily news paper on 20.08.2023, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Special Collector, L.A., Srisailam Project, Kurnool and submitted its report on 21.08.2025. As per the report, the allegations were disproved and it was held that though the allegations levelled against the petitioner were disproved, only certain procedural lapses were identified. But 4 surprisingly, contrary to the said enquiry report, the District Collector, Kurnool has recommended to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide letter dated 09.09.2025 for initiation of disciplinary proceedings by drawing up articles of charges against the petitioner. Consequently, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings, dated 29.09.2025, has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by framing two charges. 4. While the enquiry with regard to the allegations published in the news paper was pending, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22939 of 2025 seeking consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector as per G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991. As per para 5 of the said G.O., promotion should be deferred only 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. In the instant case, at the relevant point of time, no charges were framed against the petitioner. Hence, he filed the said writ petition seeking consideration of his case under G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991. The said writ petition was considered and disposed of directing the 5 respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the said G.O. However, surprisingly, after disposal of the said writ petition, the respondents have served the articles of charges on the petitioner vide proceedings dated 29.09.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.28462 of 2025 with a request to consider his case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999. The said writ petition was considered and disposed of on 15.10.2025 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. Though the said orders were passed on 15.10.2025, without considering the case of the petitioner, the respondents have effected promotions vide G.O.Ms.No.383, dated 16.10.2025 and thereafter they have passed the impugned orders on 17.10.2025 rejecting the case of the petitioner with the following observations: “In view of the circumstances stated above and with due respect to the orders of the Hon’ble High Court orders Dt. 01.09.2025 in W.P.No.22939 of 2025 and also the prayer of the petitioner in W.P.No.28462 of 2025, the petitioner’s case was considered and passed over in the DPC for adhoc panel year 2024-2025 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, GA(Ser.C) Dept., Dt.10.06.1999. Hence, 6 the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of AP have been complied with.” 5. Aggrieved by the said action, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that though there is a specific direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, the respondents neither considered the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 nor assigned any reasons for deferring his case. In fact, the petitioner’s case has to be considered as per para 5B(i) and (ii) of G.O.Ms.No.257. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are only procedural lapses and no charges were pending against him since his appointment. In such circumstances, para 5B(i) of G.O.Ms.No.257 specifically provides that an officer with a clean record, the nature of charges or allegations against whom relate to minor lapses having no bearing on his integrity would not stand in the way of his being promoted. In the instant case, except the impugned charges no other charges have been framed against the petitioner and his entire service record is clean and the present allegations are only minor in nature and the enquiry 7 report submitted by the then Special Collector, L.A., Srisailam Project, Kurnool shows that they are merely minor procedural lapses. In such circumstances, the respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner under para 5B(i) of G.O.Ms.No.257. 7. Further, para 6 of G.O.Ms.No.257 clearly contemplates that the appointing authority should consider and decide that it would not be against public interest to allow adhoc promotion to the officer concerned. But, in the instant case, no reasons have been given by the authority. Even if the case of the petitioner was not considered under para 5B(i) of G.O.Ms.No.257, the authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioner under para 6 of G.O.Ms.No.257. Hence, the impugned orders are contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.28462 of 2025 dated 15.10.2025 and also contrary to para 5B(i) and para 6 of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999. Therefore, he requested to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter for reconsideration. 8. Reply to the said contentions, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents made his 8 submissions based on the averments made in the counter. He placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.383, dated 16.10.2025, wherein the Government considered the approved strength of 37 vacancies of Deputy Collectors and issued proceedings effecting promotions to the said posts vide G.O.Ms.No.383, dated 16.10.2025. He further submitted that in fact, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 and thereafter passed the impugned orders. As charges are pending against the petitioner, the respondents have deferred the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257. Therefore, the impugned orders are in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.257. 9. Considering the submissions made by both counsel, though there is a direction by this Court in W.P.No.28462 of 2025 dated 15.10.2025 to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, the respondents have considered the case and deferred the same on the ground that charges are pending against him. On perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that though the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner, they have not mentioned any reasons for such deferment. However, the fact remains that the 9 respondents have considered the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 and as charges are pending against the petitioner, his case has been deferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the said charges framed against the petitioner are only procedural lapses. However, this Court is not inclined to make any observations with regard to the said charges. 10. Considering the submissions and taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 and to conclude the departmental proceedings within the timelines stipulated in the said G.O. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 13.03.2026 Ivd 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.29829 of 2025 Dated: 13.03.2026 Ivd