Allowed

R Srinivasa Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Feb 2021WP/1893/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought promotion despite pending departmental enquiry. Advocate for Government contested entitlement under G.O.Ms.No.257. Bench held petitioner entitled to benefit of delayed proceedings under Clause 5(c) of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and issued direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner case for promotion to next higher cadre subject to conditions in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, specifically Para 5(c).

R Srinivasa Rao Vs The State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.1893 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“……..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in deferring petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-I in the Approved List of candidates for promotion as Sub-Registrar Grade-I for the panel year 2020-21 on the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry arising out of charge Memo No.X/190/2014-2, dated 03.12.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-I without reference to the Charge Memo No.X/190/2014-2, dated 03.12.2018 taking into consideration the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as this Court.”

¶7

It is the case of petitioner that the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Eluru Range, Eluru, issued a Charge Memo dated 03.12.2018 framing 2 charges against the petitioner. Surprise check proceedings were conducted on 29.09.2014 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Tadepalligudem. The gist of the charges is that accepting of bribe through un-authorized Document/Assistant Document writers and keeping the bribe amount in the possession of private persons is misconduct. The 3^rd respondent after lapse of 2 years approximately by memo dated 17.02.2020 communicated the documents annexed to the charge memo. Immediately, on its receipt, the petitioner submitted his

¶8

¶9

explanation on 27.02.2020 denying the charges after supply of all the documents referred in Annexure-IV annexed to the charge memo. As on today inquiry has not been commenced. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Eluru Range, Eluru, after 4 years 4 months issued a charge memo dated 03.12.2018 and enquiry is yet to be commenced. Therefore, delay in initiation of enquiry and completion of departmental proceedings, for which delay the petitioner has no role to play, is a grave illegality.

¶10

On account of delay in completion of the departmental proceedings in the recent DPC for the panel year 2020-21, the petitioner denied promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade-I for no fault of the petitioner. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008 fixing the outer limit to complete the departmental proceedings and in the matters of simple charges, it should be completed within three months and six months in case of grave charges. Taking into consideration of said G.O the Division Bench of Combined High Court in Government of A.P vs. A.Rajeswara Reddy¹ directed the respondent to consider the petitioner therein for promotion without reference to the charge sheet. Following the said judgment W.P.No.9656/2019 was also allowed by orders dated 23.07.2019 and similarly W.P.No.11575/2019 was also by order dated 26.08.2019. Hence, the petitioner

¶11

1 2010 (4) ALT 374

¶12

¶13

requested to direct the respondents to consider his case stated supra.

¶14

During the course of hearing, Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the petition and limited his request to consider the candidature of this petitioner for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999.

¶15

Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Services-I on instructions fairly submitted that in terms of Clause 5(c) of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, the case of the petitioner’s case cannot be considered for promotion to the next higher cadre and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶16

Since the request of the petitioner is limited irrespective of Charge Memo dated 03.12.2018, Eluru Range, Eluru if any pending enquiry or criminal proceedings are not completed within two years from the date of initiation of proceedings or from the date of filing of charge memo, the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 subject to the terms and conditions contained in Para 5(c) of the G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Learned counsel for the petitioner requested to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Para 5(c) of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Similarly, learned Government Pleader for Services-I is also contending that in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated

¶17

¶18

10.06.1999, the petitioner is not entitled for being considered for promotion to the next higher cadre.

¶19

Since the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I is to follow G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, no further adjudication is necessary and it would suffice to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of this petitioner for being considered for promotion to the next higher cadre subject to the conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, more particularly, keeping in view of Para 5(c) of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999.

¶20