IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAV
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 27983 OF 2024
Between:
M. Venkata Kumar, S/o. M. Rangappa, Aged about 54 years,
Occ:
Administrative Officer, O/o. Dy. Transport Commissioner,
Kurnooi, R/o. H No
6-1-897, Kovurnagar, Ananthapur.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The Transport Commissioner, A.P, Krishna District,
Vijayawada.
2. The State of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Transport, Roads and
Buildings Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur
District.
...RESPONDENTS
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 nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action
one
of the
Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner
for promotion to
the post of Regional Transport Officer (RTO) without
reference to the
disciplinary proceedings / charge memo pending against
him vide Charge
Memo NO.20022/15A/I/2020-18 dt 02.11.2022
as illegal, arbitrary
discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution
of
India and consequently, direct the Respondents to promote
the Petitioner
to the post of Regional Transport Officer (RTO), without
reference
to the
disciplinary proceedings / charge memo pending against
him.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition, the High Court
may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider
the case of the
Petitioner for promotion to the post of Regional Transport
Officer (RTO),
without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pending
against him
pending disposal of the above writ petition. ^
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POODATTU AMARENDER
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.S. MANIDHAR PINGALI,
ASST. GP FOR SERVICE-II
The Court at the stage of admission made the following:
ORDER
APHC010535402024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
[3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY. THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 27983/2024
Between;
1.M VENKATA KUMAR. S/0 M. RANGAPPA. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
OCC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
0/0 DY. TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONER. KURNOOL. R/0. H.NO. 6-1-897. KOVURNAGAR
ANANTHAPUR.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER. REP. KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2.THE STATE OF A P. REP.. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TRANSPORT. ROADS
AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT.
SECRETARIAT. VELAGAPUDI. GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
pleased 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 Regional Transport Officer (RTO) without reference
to the disciplinary
proceedings / charge memo pending against him vide
Charge Memo
NO.20022/15A/1/2020-18 dt.02.11.2022 as illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory and
violative of Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently, direct the Respondents to promote the
Petitioner to the post of
Regional Transport Officer (RTO), without reference
to the disciplinary
proceedings / charge memo pending against him and to
pass
\
\
Page 2 of 5
SRS.J
W.P.No.27983 of 2024
lA NO: 1 OF 2n?4
Pet,ton under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances
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
Petitioner for promotion to
the post of Regional Transport Officer (RTO), without
reference to the
disciplinary proceedings pending against him pending
disposal
of the above
writ petition and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.POODATTU AMARENDER
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GPFOR SERVICES II
2.
The Court made the following:
:: ORDER ::
Heard Sri P.Amarender,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for Services
appeared for respondents 1 & 2.
2. A charge memo vide No.20022/15A/1/2020-18,
dated 02.11.2022
(Ex.P1) was issued against the petitioner.
The petitioner submitted
an
explanation dated 10.10.2024 (Ex.P5). A revised seniority
list of Administrative
Officers of Zones 1 to 4
was prepared vide R.No. 13023/2/D 1/2024. dated
27.09.2024 (Ex.P7), wherein the petitioner was shown
at S.No.100.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that though the
petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of
Regional Transport Officer,
me respondent authorities are not considering the case
of the petitioner due to
ih^ pendency of the aforementioned charge memo.
/
Page 3 of 5
SRS.J
i
W.P.No.27983 of 2024
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would submit that
the respondent authorities will consider the case of the petitioner for promotion
in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated
10.06.1999.
5. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute
about the issuance of charge memo vide No.20022/15A/1/2020-18, dated
02.11.2022 (Ex.P1) against the petitioner and the same is pending.
6. 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, fixing timelines
to complete the inquiry within three months in simple and six months in case
of complicated cases respectively. In the case at hand, the respondent
authorities flouted G.Os., deliberately. For the fault on the part of the
disciplinary authority, in not concluding the inquiry,
the petitioner shall not be
penalized.
In State of Punjab and Others v. Chaman Lai Goyal\
7.
the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed as follows:
“ At the same time, it is directed that the respondent
should
be considered forthwith for promotion without reference
to and without
taking into consideration the charges or the pendency
of the said
enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should
be promoted
Immediately. ”
I
8. In The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by
its Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department and another v. A.RaJeswara
Reddy,
^ (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570
Page 4 of 5
SRS.o
W.P,No.27983 of 2024
Deputy Collector^ the Division
Bench of Composite High Court observed
as
follows;
^ince the petitioners did
not complete the departmental
proceedings against the respondent
after lapse of more than
one
end half years, the Trihunal 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.
9.
Ordinarily
an employee will not be
considered for
promotion if
disciplinary proceedings
are initiated
against him based
on serious
allegstions. However,
an employee cannot be denied
promotion by keeping
the
disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long
periods.
10.
Given the facts and ci
circumstances of the
case, the Writ Petition is
disposed of, at the stage of admission
with the consent of both the learned
counsel, directing the respondent
authorities to consider the case nf the
petitioner for promotion, if the petitioner's case
is in the zone of consideration
wi^out reference to the aforementioned charge memo.
There shall be '
order as to costs. r>iwii oe no
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous
petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
^^010~(4)"aLT374
//true copy//
/
To,
mfi
SE
OFFICER
1- The Transport Commissio
ner, A.P, Krishna District
Vijayawada,
and Buildings
3.
to Sri Poodattu Amarender
Advocate fOPUC]
4. TwoCCstoGPforService-
High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
5. Three C.D. Copies. (OUT)
Cnr
cnr
HIGH COURT
DATED:29/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.27983 of 2024
X 0 B APR 2025
69
a
Current Section ^
DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF
ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS