Allowed

V Satyanarayana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Oct 2023WP/2086/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Special Original Jurisdiction held that prolonged delay in completing disciplinary proceedings (over 7 years) cannot bar a government employee from promotion. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to Deputy Range Officer without reference to the pending charge memo.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be considered for promotion to Deputy Range Officer without reference to the charge memo in Rc.No.813/2015-N6.

V Satyanarayana Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 2086 OF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

V. Satyanarayana, S/o. Venkateswara Naidu, Age 38 years Working as Forest Section Officer, Matham Bheemavaram Section Marripaka Range, Chintapalli Division Visakhapatnam Circle, (Earlier Narsipatnam Divn), Narsipatnam, Anakapalli District.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Dept, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶10

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (HoFF), Visakhapatnam.

¶11

The Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam Circle, Visakhapatnam.

¶12

The Divisional Forest Officer, Narsipatnam Division Anakapally District.

¶13

The Divisional Forest Officer, Chintapalli Division Alluri Sitaramaraju District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer (non selection and non gazette) on the ground of pendency of Articles of Charges issued in Rc.No.813/2015-N6 dt.15.7.2015 and affecting promotions to juniors on 30.6.2021 and 20.10.2022 inspite of findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer dt.27.11.2019 not proving the charges as illegal, arbitrary and violates Article^14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Goel Vs. State of Punjab case reported in¹⁹⁹⁵ (2) SCC 570 and in the case of Rajeswara Reddy Case Vs.State of A.P^reported in 2010 (4) ALT 374 (DB) and consequently declare that the petitioner is^entitled for promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted with^all consequential attendant benefits in the interests of justice.

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶17

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}

¶18

issue Interim Direction directing the respondents to forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer, (non selection and non gazette) in the existing vacancy or future arising vacancy without reference to the Articles of Charges issued in Rc.No.813/2015-N6 dt.15.7.2015 pending disposal of the above W.P.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. V. RAMANA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.2086 of 2023

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶26

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶27

".... to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer (non selection and non gazette) on the ground of pendency of Articles of Charges issued in Rc.No.813/2015-N6 dt.15.7.2015 and affecting promotions to juniors on 30.6.2021 and 20.10.2022 in spite of findings submitted by the Enquiry Officer dt.27.11.2019 not proving the charges as illegal, arbitrary and violates Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in "Chaman Lal God l Vs. State of Punjab case reported in 1995 (2) SCC 570 and in the case of Rajeswara Reddy Case Vs. State of A.P. reported in 2010 (4) ALT 374 (DB) and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion from the date on which his juniors were promoted with all consequential attendant benefits in the interests of justice "

¶28

Tl-, A 11'. A . h U i I J €: 't c Ac L -Lo ,-..c V1 n-. 1111. .,0.5 n n c+ Qr~, n c 4 L11QL, l r+ 4 Ll i- C pCL1L1l111G1 ~: 4 wdS

¶29

initially appointed as direct recruitee Forest Section Officer in the year 2008 and posted at Tokaraj Section and also the in^-charge of Sileru Section. Based upon the report of Vigilance^dated 14.11.2012, after 3 years Charge Memo was issued on^{15.7.20 15}

¶30

¶31

V S,J wp_2086_2023

¶32

vide Rc.No.813/2015-N6. The charge is that while he was working as Section Officer at Tokaraj Section from 1.10.2009 to 181.2011 and while he was in-charge of Sileru Section, he had shown negligence in discharging official duty in booking offence cases OR 199/2009, Seizure of Maruti Car bearing No.AP 31 AC 731 carrying 17 rosewood pieces resulted in theft of Maruti Car. The incident pertains to 2009-2010. He submitted reply on 7.10.2015 denying the said charge. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Narsipatnam, was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 30.3.2016. On 06.06.2016, 22.7.2016, 30.5.2018 and 30.10.2019 enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted findings on 27.11.2019 that the charge framed against the petitioner was not proved. In spite of the same, as on today, the petitioner has not received any proceedings dropping the charge.

¶33

On 9.9.2020 Seniority List of Forest Section Officers was prepared by the Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam Section which is the channel for promotions of Deputy Range Officers. The name of the petitioner stands at S.No.22 in the seniority list. One P.Ravi Babu, who was junior to the petitioner, stands at S.No.23 was promoted as Deputy Ilange Officer on 30.6.2021.

¶34

¶35

wp_2086_2023

¶36

Smt. Devi Rajeswari, who stands at S.No.24, P.Bhaskar Rao at S.No.25 and K.Krishna Rao at S.No.26 were promoted as Deputy Range Officers on 13.2.2022. On 26.10.2022, I.Ramu who stands at S.No.27 and Ch.Simhachala Patel at S.No.28 were promoted as Deputy Range Officers.

¶37

It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government issued instructions in Circular Memo No.24637/35676/Ser.C./98-I G.A.(Ser.C) dept dt.1.7.1998 and Memo No.24637/Serv.C/2000-2 GA (Ser.C) Dept dt.5.9.2000 to complete disciplinary proceedings within 3 months in simple cases, and 6 months in complicated cases. A Division Bench of the High Court rendered judgment in "Rajeswara Reddy Vs.State of A.P.1" where the disciplinary proceedings were not completed within 1 1/ 2 year was declared that Government employee is entitled for promotion to higher category without reference to Articles of Charges.

¶38

Once the Articles of Charges are not proved, the^{question of} denying the case of the petitioner for promotion to^thepostof Deputy Range Officer which is non selection and^nongazetteon the ground of not finalizing the^{departmentalproceedingsdoes}

¶39

1 2010 (4) ALT 374 (DB)

¶40

¶41

VS,J wp_2086_2023

¶42

not arise. The Apex Court in the case of "Chaman Lal Goel Vs. State of Punjab2" declared that when the disciplinary proceedings are not completed for a period of 5 years directed for promotion without reference to the Articles of Charges. Therefore, the action of the respondents in deferring the case of the petitioner for promotion in spite of not proving the charges while affecting promotions to the higher categories from June 2021 is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

¶43

Respondent No.4 filed counter contending that, though the findings were submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (For. IV) Department through the Chief Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam and Prl. Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, A.P., Guntur during the year 2019-2020; no orders were received on the Articles of Charges pending against the petitioner either as on the date of preparation of seniority list for the category of Forest Section Officer -.. ., v1.vi.2vGV, 01.01.2021 & 01.01.2022 or as on the date of preparation of panel information for the category of Forest Section Officer i.e., 01.09.2020, 01.09.2021 and 01.09.2022 for promotion to the

¶44

2 1995 (2) SCC 570

¶45

¶46

V S,J wp_2086_2023

¶47

category of Deputy Range Officer. Hence, as per the procedures laid down in A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the seniority lists and panel information are prepared and promotions were taken up from the category of Forest Section Officers to the category of Deputy Range Officers with the eligible candidates duly following the provisions contained in G.O.Ms.no.88, EFS&T (For.IV) Dept., dt.19.07.2000 and G.O.Ms.no.84, EFS&T (Sec.V) Dept., dt.31.07.2018.

¶48

It is further contended that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in connection with the Vigilance and Enforcement report No.97 against the petitioner. The Government of Andhra Pradesh of Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec. IV) Department have issued orders in Govt.Memo.No.996/Sec.IV/A1 /2021, dt.08.08.2022 directing the Head of Departments to refer all disciplinary cases having vigilance angle, if any to the Government invariably for taking the advice of Vigilance Commission at appropriate stages, as per the scheme of Vigilance Commission and not to finalize the disciplinary^caseswithout getting Vigilance Clearance from the Government.

¶49

The Government of Andhra^{Pradesh,EFS&T(For.IV)} Department in Govt. Memo.No.89^{12/Sec.IV/A1/20 12,dated}

¶50

¶51

VS,J wp_2086_2023

¶52

24.'11.2022 have not accepted the findings submitted by the then DFO, Narsipatnam (Enquiry Officer) in Rc.No.813/2015-N6, dated 17.12.2019 against the petitioner and instructed to take necessary action as per A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991 for further inquiry immediately. Accordingly, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF, A.P., Guntur leas issued instructions in Ref.no.14465/2014/A&DC-2 (i), dated 13.12.2022 to conduct further inquiry in the disciplinary case of the petitioner and to submit the findings for onward submission to the Government. Accordingly, an enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner in DFO, Chintapalli Rc.No.813/2015/N6, dated 01.02.2023 to attend for inquiry on 10.02.2023. Soon after completion of enquiry, the findings will be submitted to the Government through the higher authorities. The case of the petitioner will be considered for promotion to the category of Deputy Range Officer subject to the outcome of disciplinary proceedings in connection with the Vigilance and Enforcement Report No.97 pending against the petitioner and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 15.07.2015 and

¶54

¶55

VS,J wp_2086_2023

¶56

that on 30.03.2016, the Divisional Forest Officer, Narsipatnam was appointed as Enquiry Officer. But, till today, the petitioner has not received any proceedings. As per Circular Memo No.24637/ 35676/ Ser. C. / 98-I G.A. (Ser. C) dept dt.1.7.1998 and Memo No.24637/Serv.C/2000-2 GA (Ser.C) Dept dated 5.9.2000. the time limit to complete disciplinary proceedings is 3 months in simple cases, and 6 months in complicated cases, but in the present case, even though the charge memo was issued on 15.07.2015, the enquiry was not completed. He further contended that the action of the respondents in deferring the case of the petitioner for promotion is illegal and arbitrary.

¶57

Learned Government Pleader for Services - I would submit as the charge framed against the petitioner is grave in nature, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, EFS&T (For.IV) Department vide Govt. Memo.No.8912/Sec.IV/A1/2012, dated 24.11.2022 has not accepted the findings submitted by the then DFO, Narsipatnam (Enquiry Officer) in Rc.No.813/2015-N6, dated 17.12.'2019 against the petitioner and instructed^to take necessary action as per A.P. Civil Services^{(Classification, Control} & Appeal) Rules, 1991 for further inquiry immediately. Accordingly, the^Principal Chief^{ConservatorofForests&HoFF,}

¶58

¶59

V S,J wp_2086_2023

¶60

Ref.no.14465/2014/A&DC-2 (i), dated 13.12.2022 to conduct further inquiry in the disciplinary case of the petitioner and to submit the findings for onward submission to the Government. Accordingly, an enquiry notice was issued to the petitioner in DFO, Chintapalli Rc.No.813/2015/N6, dated 01.02.2023 to attend for inquiry on 10.02.2023 and the case of the petitioner will be considered for prbmotion to the category of Deputy Range Officer subject to the outcome of disciplinary proceedings in connection with the Vigilance and Enforcement Report No.97 pending against the petitioner and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶61

It is an admitted fact that basing upon the report of the Vigilance dated 14.11.2012, a charge memo was issued on 15.07.2015 i.e. after three years from the date of Vigilance report. On 30.03.2016, an Enquiry officer was appointed, who has submitted his report on 21.11.2019 stating that the charge framed against the petitioner was not proved, but till today the petitioner has not received any proceeding dropping the charge. As per the averments made in the counter, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, EFS&T (For.IV) Department vide Govt.

¶62

¶63

V S,J wp_2086_2023

¶64

Memo.No.8912/Sec.IV/A1/2012, dated 24.11.2022 has not accepted the findings submitted by the then DFO, Narsipatnam (Enquiry Officer) in Rc.No.813/2015-N6, dated 17.12.2019 against the petitioner. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests & HoFF, A.P., Guntur has issued instructions in Ref.no.14465/2014/A&DC-2 (i), dated 13.12.2022 to conduct further inquiry in the disciplinary case of the petitioner. Later, a notice dated 01.02.2023 was issued to the petitioner to attend for inquiry on 10.02.2023.

¶65

Therefore, it is clear that once enquiry officer was appointed on 30.03.2016, and he submitted his report, but vide proceedings Memo. No.8912 / Sec.IV /A 1 / 2012, dated 24.11.2022 has not accepted the findings submitted by the then Enquiry officer and instructed to conduct further inquiry as per A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. Now, under the guise of pending enquiry, the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion to the category^of Deputy Range Officer.

¶66

The Government issued instructions in^CircularMemo No.24637/35676/Ser.C./98-I G.A.(Ser.C) dept^{dt.1.7.1998and} Memo No.24637/Serv.C/2000-2 GA (Ser.C) Dept^{dt.5.9.2000to}

¶67

¶68

V S,J wp_2086_2023

¶69

complete disciplinary proceedings within 3 months in simple cases, and 6 months in complicated cases. But, in the present case, based upon the report of Vigilance dated 14.11.2012, a charge memo was issued on 15.07.2015. Due to obvious reasons, the enquiry was not completed for the last 8 years.

¶70

In "Rajeswara Reddy Vs.State of A.P." (referred supra) where the disciplinary proceedings were not completed within 1 ½ year, the Division Bench of this Court held that the Government employee is entitled for promotion to higher category without reference to Articles of Charges.

¶71

In "Chaman Lai Goel Vs. State of Punjab" (referred supra) declared that where the disciplinary proceedings are not completed for a period of 5 years directed for promotion without reference to the Articles of Charges.

¶72

In "New Bank of India Vs. N.P.Sehgal and another3" the Apex Court held as follows:

¶73

"In considering the submissions of the respective parties, we have to bear in mind that it is accepted before us that in law the mere fact that disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or under consideration against an employee does not constitute a good ground for not considering the employee concerned for promotion if he is in the zone of consideration nor

3 1991 SCR (1) 473

vS,J wp_2086_2023

would it constitute a good ground for denying the promotion if the employee is considered otherwise fit for promotion."

¶78

From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, it can be understood that the pendency of departmental enquiry is no bar for promotion of the Government employee, and that the punishment can be imposed even in the promoted post.

¶79

Further, in the present case, for the delay caused by the concerned authorities in not completing the enquiry, the benefit of promotion cannot be denied to the petitioner. Moreover, as per Circular Memo No.24637/35676/Ser.C./98-I G.A.(Ser.C) dept dt.1.7.1998 and Memo No.24637/Serv.C/2000-2 GA (Ser.C) Dept dt.5.9.2000 the time limit to complete disciplinary proceedings is 3 months in simple cases, and 6 months in complicated cases. Therefore, it is just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer without referring to the^Chargememo issued in Rc.No.813/2015-N6 dated 15.07.2015.

¶80

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed^{ofdirectingthe} respondents to consider the case of the^{petitionerforpromotion} to the post of Deputy Range^{Officerwithoutreferencetothe}

¶81

¶82

VS,J wp_2086 2023

¶83

Charge memo issued in Rc.No.813/2015-N6 dated 15.07.2015.

¶84

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶85

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ

¶86

Petition shall stand closed.

SDI- M. SRINIVAS

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

The Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and^{Technology Dept,} State Andhra Pradesh, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶92