Disposed

K Venkataramana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Sept 2024WP/19375/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition challenging non-promotion due to pending disciplinary proceedings. The High Court directed authorities to complete the inquiry within two months and consider promotion if completed prior to the petitioner's retirement.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to complete inquiry within two months; petitioner to be considered for promotion if inquiry completed or if retiring within ten months.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19375 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Venkataramana, S/o K Satyanarayana, Aged 61 years, Occ^Tahsildarand Mandal Executive, Tirupathi Urban, R/o D.No.501, Sapthagiri Sadhan, Vidyanagar, Tirupati Rural, Chittoor Andhra Pradesh State 517502.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department AP Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶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 declare the charge memo dated 23.05.2023 as bad illegal arbitrary baseless and further declare the action of the respondents in not finalizing the said disciplinary proceedings within 6 months from the date of

¶15

X-

¶16

issue of charge memo as mandated by the government^{videGoMsno679} dated 10.06.1999 and also declare the action of the respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of deputy collector solely on the ground of pendency of the above disciplinary proceedings as bad illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as deputy collector^{witheffectfrom} the date of his eligibility and availability of vacancy with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus.

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶18

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 claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of deputy collector without reference to the charge memo dated 23.05.2023.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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 charge memo dated 23.05.2023.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.SUDHEER

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

APHC010381912024

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH H;*Sc .1 AT AMARAVATI m H (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

[3331]

¶27

THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 19375/2024

¶31

Between:

¶32

K Venkataramana ...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶36

1.J SUDHEER

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶38

1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:

¶39

:: ORDER ::

¶40

The above writ petition is filed under Article 226^{oftheConstitution} of

¶41

India seeking the following relief:

¶42

“...to declare the charge memo dated 23.05.2023 as bad illegal arbitrary baseless and further declare the action of the respondents in not finalizing the said disciplinary proceedings within 6 months from^{thedateofissueof} charge memo as mandated by the government vide Go Ms^no679dated 10.06.1999 and also declare the action of the respondents in not \

Page 2 of 6

SRS,J W.P.No,19375 of 2024

¶47

considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of deputy collector solely on the ground of pendency of the above disciplinary proceedings as bad illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as deputy collector^{witheffectfrom} the date of his eligibility and availability of vacancy with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and pass such other order^{ororders...”}

¶48

Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appeared for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶49

A Charge Memo vide CCLA’s Ref.No.REV02-28/48/2023 (C.No.2007504), dated 23.05.2023 (Ex.P1) was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation vide Ex.P2. An Inquiry officer was appointed on 01.08.2023.

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the inquiry has not been concluded so far, and the case of the petitioner^{wasnotconsideredfor} promotion because of the pendency of the aforementioned charge memo.

¶51

Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services submitted instructions of Assistant Secretary (Services) of CCLA, AP, Mangalagiri. Para No.3 of the said instructions reads^asfollows:

¶52

“The Supplementary Departmental Promotion Committee^forthe Adhoc panel Year 2023-2024 met on 29.08.2024 and the^committee has made the following observations;

¶53

/
£

¶54

' 'Page 3 of 6

¶55

SRS,J W.P.No.19375 of 2024

¶56

“Article of charges are pending against the individual vide CCLA’s Prcgs.Dt.23.05.2023 for furnishing false report to the Hon’ble AP Lokayukta on encroachments. The action of the public servant is against to the public interest. Hence, the name of the individual is passed over in the Supplementary DPC in the adhoc panel year 2023-24 of Deputy Collectors in terms of G.O.Ms.No.424, GA (Ser.C) Department, dated 15.04.1976 read with Para 5(B)(iii) and Para 6 of G.O.Ms.No.257, GA (Ser.C) Dept., Dt.10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.66 GA (Ser.C) Dept, Dt.30.1.1991.”

¶57

The instructions further disclose that the Minutes of Supplementary DPC were furnished to the Government. The candidature of the petitioner was considered for the supplementary DPC as his name has come under the zone of consideration and was passed over by the DPC, due to the pending disciplinary case.

¶58

Admittedly, a charge memo vide Ex.PI was issued against the petitioner and the inquiry officer was appointed on 01.08.2023. it is pertinent to mention here that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 fixing timelines to complete the inquiry within three months in case of simple and six months in case of complicated cases. In the said G.O., it was further stated that the Secretaries to Government shall review the progress of the inquiries ordered in all disciplinary cases and submit a note on the cases pending beyond the

¶59

Page 4 of 6

¶60

SRS.J W.P No.19375 of 2024

¶61

Stipulated time to the Chief Secretary to the Government and also the Chief Minister.

¶62

Clause (xi) of the said G.O., would prescribe that the inquiry authorities are liable for disciplinary action for their failure to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period. In cases, where a large number of witnesses are to be examined and voluminous material papers are to be verified, the inquiring authorities shall invariably take prior permission from the concerned disciplinary authorities by submitting detailed reasons for continuing the departmental inquiry beyond the stipulated period. 9. - Despite, the said G.O., the inquiry in the case at hand, was not completed, within the timeline fixed in the said G.O. Though, the case of the petitioner was under the zone of consideration, however,^the same was not considered, because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The latches on the part of the respondent authority, in concluding the inquiry, the petitioner normally shall not be penalized. However, this is a classic case and example that due to non-concluding the inquiry within the timelines fixed , an employee suffered. At the same time, the employee approached the Court after completion of supplementary DPC and approval from the Government.

¶63

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, and since the Supplementary DPC was approved by the Government, the Writ Petition IS

¶64

SRS,J W.P.No.19375 of 2024

¶65

Page 5 of 6

¶66

disposed of directing the respondent authorities to^{completetheinquiryin} terms of G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, within two (02) months. If any Supplementary^Departmental Committee is formed, the respondent authorities shall^{considerthecaseofthe} the outcome of the inquiry or without petitioner for promotion based on reference to the charge memo if the inquiry is completed,^{sincethepetitioner} IS retiring within 10 months. There shall be no order^astocosts.

¶67

¶68

As a

¶69

sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall^standclosed.

¶70

SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTfON OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi,^Guntur District.

¶75

2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, APIIC^{Building,Auto} Nagar, Near NRI Hospitals, Mangalagiri, Guntur District

¶76

One CC to SRI J.SUDHEER, Advocate [OPUC]

¶77

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

¶78

Two C.D Copies. MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.19375 of 2024

DISPOSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS

K Venkataramana v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Venkataramana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veerapaneni Rama Devi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Pedda Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D C Manju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

S.Ramanjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Tupili Ravi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K Srinivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh