Disposed

G.v.S.Phaneendra Babu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Jul 2024WP/14458/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-consideration of the petitioner for Deputy Collector promotion due to pending disciplinary inquiries. The Court held that charges were delayed beyond stated timelines and ordered authorities to consider the promotion case.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, if other requirements are satisfied.

G.v.S.Phaneendra Babu, Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

¶3

WEDNESDAY jyE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14458 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri G.V.S.Phaneendra Babu, S/o VenugopaL Aged 47 years,^Tahsildar, Chinaganjam Mandal, Chinaganjam, Prakasam District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶12

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, APIIC Building, Auto Nagar, Near NRI Hospitals, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 particularly^{oneinthenatureof} Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent^authorities in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, initiated through charge memos vide G.O.Rt.No.423 dated 12.07.2021 and G.O.Rt.No. 1039 Revenue (Vig.lll) Department dated 02.12.2022, as highly arbitrary, illegal, unjust, against the principles of natural justice, violative of fundamental rights and contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 679 GAD, dated 01.11.2008

¶15

i. ;^‘»an(i; Q..O.MS. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999 and consequently^to direct the ft: ^ respondent authorities to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy V' GoIlQ'Ctor without reference to the above said pending charge memos. S- Jf ■■■

¶16

IA^0: 1 OF 2024

¶17

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 respondent authorities to consider^thecase of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector^{withoutreferenceto} the pending disciplinary proceedings initiated through charge memos vide G.O.Rt.No.423 dated 12.07.2021 and G.O.Rt. No. 1039 Revenue (Vig.lll) Department dated 02.12.2022, pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

/S*-'

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.14458 OF 2024

¶25

Between:

¶26

G.V.S.Phaneendra Babu, S/o Venugopal, Aged .47 years, Tahsildar, Chinaganjam Mandal, Chinaganjam, Prakasam District.

¶27

... Petitioner

¶28

And

¶29

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati and another.

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri M.Balaji Counsel for respondents : GP for Services - I

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent authorities in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector, without^reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings initiated vide charge memos i.e. G.O.Rt.No.423, dated 12.07.2021 and G.O.Rt.No.1039 Revenue (Vig.lll) Department dated 02.12.2022, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.679 GAD, dated 01.11.2008 and I G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999.

J-

Page 2 of 5

SRS, J W.P.No.14458 of 2024

¶38

Heard Sri M.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents Nos.1 & 2.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was selected through Group-2 services recruitment^and appointed as Deputy Tashildar in the Office of the District Collector, Guntur on 07.11.2007. Later, the petitioner was posted as Tahsildar, Tadikonda Mandal on 08.07.2022 and thereafter as Tahsildar, Chinaganjam Mandal of Bapatia District. The petitioner^wasissued with charge memos vide G.O.Rt.No.423, dated 12.07.2021 and G.O.Rt.No.1039 Revenue (Vig.lll) Department dated 02.12.2022. The petitioner submitted the explanation. However, the inquiry is not completed. Since the inquiry is pending, the case of the petitioner is not considered for promotion.

¶40

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions of the Assistant Secretary (Services), Mangalagiri would submit that the petitioner’s case was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector. However, he did not dispute regarding pendency of charge memos as referred supra and the aforementioned G.O.s issued by the competent authority. ?

¶41

Page 3 of 5

¶42

SRS, J W.P.No.14458 of 2024

¶43

¶44

(

¶45

When this Court posed a question as to the completion of inquiry within 03/06 months as per G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 10.06.1999, learned Assistant Government Pleader did not dispute the same.

¶46

Para No.3 of G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 10.06.1999, is extracted hereunder: -

¶47

“Government direct that the disciplinary cases initiated against the Government employees shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and the existing instructions read above shall be adhered to. The Departments of Secretariat^shall review the status position of the pending disciplinary cases against all the employees with which they are concerned^and submit a note to the Chief Secretary to Government as per the instructions in force. It is also the responsibility of the inquiring authorities to complete the inquiry as per. the allowed^time.The Competent Authority, after receipt of the inquiry report shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings within 6 months of its initiation and in case of abnormal delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings; action shall be initiated against concerned inquiring authority.”

¶48

In fact, in the said G.O., it was noted that Instructions^were issued for expeditious completion of the inquiries^{andnormaltimeof} 3 months and 6 months is allowed in simple and complicated cases, respectively.

¶49

Page 4 of 5

¶50

SRSJ W.P.No.14458 of 2024

¶51

Case at hand, as observed supra, charge memos vide G.O.Rt.No.423, dated 12.07.2021 and G.O.Rt.No.1039 Revenue (Vig.III) Department dated 02.12.2022, are pending against the petitioner. The inquiry is not completed. The delay caused by the authorities qua the inquiry, the petitioner cannot be denied promotion.

¶52

Given the facts and 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 of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. if the petitioner^satisfiesthe other requirements. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any. shall stand closed.

¶54

To,

¶55

//TRUE COPY//

¶56

Sd/- IW. SRINIVAS assistant registrar SECTION OFFICER

¶57

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P.^Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶58

The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, APIIC Building, Auto Nagar, Near NRl Hospitals, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶59

One CC to SRI. BALAJI MEDAMALLI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court Of Andhra^Pradesh. [OUT]

¶61

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.14458of 2024

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

G.v.S.Phaneendra Babu, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.v.S.Phaneendra Babu, v. 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

P.Karunakara Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Afzal Shaw, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Hanumanthu Krishna Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Munaga Srikanth Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Satyanarayana Senapathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Cheekatla Venkatrao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh