Disposed

Srinivasa Reddy Rikkala v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC25 Jul 2024WP/15973/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A joint petition under Articles 226/151 Constitution of India and CPC sought to set aside and suspend a charge memo regarding departmental proceedings. The court disposed of the petition at the admission stage by directing respondents to complete the inquiry as per G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 and to consider the petitioner for promotion per G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 if conditions are met.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to complete inquiry under G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 and consider petitioner for promotion under G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 if conditions meet.

Srinivasa Reddy Rikkala Vs the State… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15973 OF 2024 /

¶7

Between:

¶8

Srinivasa Reddy Rikkala, S/o R. Somi Reddy Aged about 52 years, Occ Forest Utilization Officer, O/o Principal Chief Conservator of Forests AND Head of Forest Force, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri,^{GunturDistrict}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Spl. Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (Sec.IV) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District

¶12

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests AND Head of Forest Force, , Andhra Pradesh, PVS Land Mark, Mangalagiri, Guntur^District.

¶13

The Inquiry Officer, Chief Conservator of Forests, Ananthapuram

¶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 particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in

¶16

¶17

concluding the departmental proceedings, pursuant to Charge Memo vide Ref.No.2004/2011 /Vig-1 (i) dt.28-05-2021 for an incident pertaining to the year 2009 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the rules envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 AND G.O.Ms.No.679 dt.01.11.2008 and the Common Order in WP.No.11776 and 11779 of 2021 dt. 19.07.2021 and violative Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and it is consequently prayed to Set-aside Charge Memo vide Ref.No.2004/2011 /Vig-1 (i) dt.2805-2021

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

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 suspend the Charge Memo vide RefNo.2004/2011 /Vig-1 (i) dt.28-05-2021 for an incident pertaining to the year 2009 issued by the respondent NO.2

¶20

Counsel for the PetitioneriSRI. GULIPALLI SURAJ

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.15973 OF 2024

¶26

Srinivasa Reddy Rikkala, S/o.R.Somi reddy, Aged about⁵³ years, Occ: Forest Utilization Officer, O/o. Principal^Chief Conservator of Forests & Head of Forest Force, Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶27

... Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Spl.Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District and two (2) others.

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Gulipalli Suraj Counsel for respondents ; GP for Services - I :: ORDER ::

¶32

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶33

“...issue appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in concluding the departmental proceedings, pursuant to Charge Memo vide Ref.No.2004/2011A/ig-1 (i), dated 28.05.2021 for an incident pertaining to the year 2009 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the rules envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 & G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008 and the Common Order in W.P.Nos.11776 and 11779 of 2021, dated 10.07.2021 and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit, just and proper in the circumstances^{ofthecase”.}

¶34

¶35

SRSJ wp_15973_2024

¶36

Heard Sri Kishore, learned counsel representing on^behalfofSri Gullipalli Suraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that charge memo vide Reference No.2004/2011/Vig-1(i), dated 28.05.2021 (Ex.PI) was issued by respondent No.2 framing two Articles of Charges^againstthe petitioner for an incident said to have been occurred,^{whilethepetitioner} was working as Forest Range Officer at Kalyandurg Range, Ananthapuram Division from 07.04.2007 to 02.02.2009. The petitioner submitted a written explanation, in August 2023. Thereafter,^{thepetitioner} submitted many representations, the authority to drop the charges. ^ Learned counsel would submit that the Inquiry is not completed in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, and G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted by virtue of the seniority^tothepostof Deputy Conservator of Forests. The authorities are not considering^thecaseof the petitioner since the disciplinary proceedings are pending.

¶38

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services - I while not disputing the charge memo and the explanation submitted by the .petitioner and appointment of the Inquiry Officer,^{wouldsubmitthatthe}

// J

SRS,J wp_15973_2024

petitioner’s case will be considered in terms G.O.Ms.257, dated 10.06.1999. He also would submit that the inquiry will be completed in terms of G.O.Ms.91, dated 12.09.2022.

¶44

Given the facts and circumstances, without going into^themeritsof the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, with the consent of learned counsels, directing the respondents to complete the inquiry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022. The respondents also shall consider the case of the petitioner, if the petitioner satisfies all the conditions, for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999. No order as to costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶46

Sd/- K.J. RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The State of AP, Represented by Spl. Chief Secretary,^Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (Sec.lV) Department,^{A.P.Secretariat} Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District

¶51

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests AND Head^{ofForestForce} ) I Andhra Pradesh, PVS Land Mark, Mangalagiri, Guntur^District.

¶52

The Inquiry Officer, Chief Conservator of Forests, Ananthapuram

¶53

One CC to SRI. Gulipalli Suraj Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

Two CCs to GP For Services I ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶55

Three CD Copies

¶56

HIGH COURT DATE 0:26/07/2024

¶57

ORDER

¶58

WP.No. 15973 of 2024

¶59

O
5 2 S JAN 2025
.. . Current siectian

¶60

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Srinivasa Reddy Rikkala v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasa Reddy Rikkala v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Upputholla Nasaramma at Bussa Nasaramma Vs the State of Ap

Botcha Kamala Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Savarappa, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chevuri Ankamma Rao Vs the Union of India

Nadendla Rama Chandraiah, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B Siva Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh