Partly allowed

B Chandrasekhar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2024WA/934/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the refusal to consider a promotion case due to pending disciplinary charges. The High Court modified a lower order to mandate the government to include the petitioner in the next Promotion Committee consideration immediately to prevent loss of opportunity upon superannuation, subjecting promotion to the final disciplinary outcome.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in the next Departmental Promotion Committee without waiting for disciplinary proceedings to conclude, to prevent loss of promotion op

B Chandrasekhar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT -ol
.1o I m
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
O,
AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 934 OF 2024

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against^theorder dated 10.05.2024 in W.P. No. 10086 of 2024 on the file of the High Court. Between:

¶9

B. Chandrasekhar, S/o. B.Aswartha Rao, aged about 60 years, Occ: Executive Engineer, Chittoor Urban Development Authority, Chittoor District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, at Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P.

¶13

The Engineer-in-Chief, State of Andhra Pradesh,^{PublicHealthand} Municipal Engineering Department, Tadepalli, Guntur^District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

lA NO: 3 OF 2024

¶16

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 direct the respondents to consider the petitioners case for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer by suspending operation of the order in so far as in “next DPC as and when it takes place in the order dated 10.5.2024 in W.P.No. 10086 of 2024 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal in the interest of justice.

¶17

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G. TUHIN KUMAR

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE3H

¶22

AT AMARAVATI

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶25

WRIT APPEAL NO: 934/2024

¶26

JUDGMENT: {per Hon’ble Smt. Justice Kiranmayee Mandava)

¶27

The appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single

¶28

Judge dated 10.05.2024.

¶29

Challenging the proceedings of the respondents deferring the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer, in the Department of Municipal Administration and Urban Development, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of Writ^Petition in W.P.No.10086 of 2024.

¶30

It is contended that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and a charge memo dated 12.06.2023,^was issued framing two charges alleging that the petitioner has not informed the department about the purchase of motor vehicle (two wheeler) by him in 2005 and that he had allowed his wife, employee of SBI, to purchase a motor vehicle (four wheeler) in 2005. Since the disciplinary enquiry into the charges has been pending, it is contended that the petitioner’s case for promotion was not considered though the Departmental Promotion Committee, in its meeting held on 04.03.2024, has considered the name of the petitioner and recommended for inclusion in the panel for temporary promotion to the post of

¶31

•-

¶32

¶33

Superintendkg Engineer, has deferred the same till termination of the disciplinary proceedings. The said recommendations of the DPC, was accepted by the government. The petitioner has challenged the said proceedings of the Government by way of Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge, vide order under appeal, directed the respondents^{toconsiderthecase} of the writ petitioner in the next DPC as and when the same takes place, without reference to the pendency of the departmental proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the instant Writ Appeal^isfiled.

¶34

Heard Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant^and learned Government Pleader for Services, appearing for the respondents.

¶35

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant^thatthe Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the appellant, after the meeting of the DPC. The alleged charges are relating to the period 2005, and the same have been framed against the petitioner at the fag end of his career to deprive him of further promotionsⁱⁿ his career. It is further contended that the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the case of the petitioner in the next DPC, would deprive the petitioner for promotion in the light of the fact that the appellant is going to be superannuated in six months from now and further contends that it is not known as to when the next DPC would be convened. He further contends that in all likelihood, the respondents would prolong convening the next DPC, in order to deprive the petitioner from being promoted,^{whichisevidentfromthe} fact that the respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner before the

¶36

¶37

/ \ j

¶38

tenure of the existing Committee is lapsed, which was^{inforcetill01.09.2024.} Thus, sought for considering his case for promotion to the post of Superintends^ Engineer without reference to the disciplinary proceedings.

¶39

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services supported the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶40

Considered the rival submissions.

¶41

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, is that the tenure of the existing Committee to make proposals for promotion to the posts of Superintendent Engineer in the 1®' respondent Department, had lapsed by 01.09.2024. The order of the learned Single Judge was 10.05.2024. If the respondents had any intention to implement the order of the learned Single Judge, they would have convened the meeting of DPC, well before 01.09.2024, before it could lapse. On the other hand, they have allowed the tenure of the existing committee, to get expired without convening the meeting.

¶42

In that view of the matter, prima facie, it appears that if the respondents are not going to convene the next DPC before superannuation of the petitioner, the petitioner would get superannuated^from service without promotion. In that view of the matter, the order of the learned single Judge passed in the writ petition would become redundant. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendw^ Engineer, without reference to the pendency of

¶43

¶44

¶45

disciplinary proceedings. However, it is made clear that the said promotion will be subject to result of the disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner.

¶46

To the above extent, the order of the learned Single Judge is modified. The Writ Appeal is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand

¶48

closed.

¶49

Sd/- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// er ^ / 'section OFFICER

¶50

To,

¶51

The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration^andUrban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, at Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P.

¶52

The Engineer-in-Chief, State of Andhra Pradesh,^{PublicHealthand} Municipal Engineering Department, Tadepalli, Guntur^District.

¶53

One CC to Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CCs to GP for Services-IV, High Court of Andhra^{Pradesh.[OUT]} ' 5. Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:22/11/2024

JUDGMENT

WA.No.934 of 2024

of
^ 2 ^ DEC 2024
^ . Current section
^^SPATCW^^!!^

¶61

PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.A. WITHOUT COSTS

B Chandrasekhar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Chandrasekhar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Eastern Power District Company Limited Vs Satyam Mohana Rao

The Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited Vs K Narendra

The Principal Commissioner, Vs M/s Vijayakrant Constructions

KorlaRavikumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S Kristappa Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sonnayi Nirmala Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh