Disposed

Dubba Srinivasa Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2024WP/19635/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court discharged its duty under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's transfer request in accordance with relevant Government Orders without reference to pending disciplinary charges, citing precedents and administrative guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case for transfer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024 without reference to the charge memo dated 16.02.2015.

Dubba Srinivasa Rao Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 19635 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dubba Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Bodenna, aged about 54 years, working as ACTO, R/o D.No.23-119, Maruthi Nagar, 4th Lane, Narasannapeta Srikakulam District.

¶8

...Petitioner«

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by it's Principal Secretary Revenue (CT), Secretariat Building, Amaravati.

¶11

The Chief Commissioner,, State Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Kunchanapalli, Guntur District.

¶12

The Joint Commissioner,, State Tax, Visakhapatnam Division 1, opp Star Pinacle Hospital, Chinagadhali, Visakhapatnam.

¶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 more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of. the respondents in non-concluding the disciplinary proceedings vide Memo No.7794A/IGTR/1/2011-8 dt 16- 02-2015 consequent letter No.7794A/IG-TR/1/20^11-7dt 16-02-2015 whereby referred the case to the Tribunal for Disciplinary

¶15

Proceedings (TDP) in respect of surprise check conducted on 16-12-2010 i.e. after lapse of 5 years, thereafter not taking any steps to conclude the disciplinary proceedings as on today, due to pendency of the same depriving the legitimate right of the petitioner transfer likely to be affected as per G.O.Ms.No.170 dt 22-08-2024 which is extended vide G.O.Ms.No.84 dt 29-08-2024 by extending the time upto 15-09-2024 is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.257 dt 10-06-1999, G.O.Ms.No.679 dt 1-112008 and G.O.Ms.No.529 dt 19-08-2008. Consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's transfer in terms of above mentioned G.Os.

¶16

lA NO: 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 respondents to consider the petitioner's transfer as per the G.O.Ms.No.170 dt:22-08-2024 which is extended vide G.O.Ms.No.84 dt:29-08-2024 by extending the time upto 15-09-2024 in terms of G.O.Ms.Nos.257, dt: 10-06-1999, G.O.Ms.No.679 dt;1-11-2008 and G.O.Ms.No.529 dt: 19-08-2008 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent Nos : GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER

¶20

APHC010385332024

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶22

[3331]

¶23

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶24

WEDNESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 19635/2024

Between:

Dubba Srinivasa Rao

...PETITIONER

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh and two others.

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.N A RAMACHANDRA MURTHY

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶38

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶39

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following^relief:

¶40

“...pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declaring the action of the respondents in non-concluding the disciplinary proceedings vide Memo NO.7794A/IG-TR/1/2011-8. dt;16.02.2015 consequent letter NO.7794A/G-TR/1/2011-7 dt: 16.02.2015 whereby referred^thecaseto the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings (TDP) in respect of surprise check conducted on 16.12.2010 i.e. after lapse of 5 years, thereafter not taking any steps to conclude the disciplinary proceedings as on today, due to pendency of the same depriving the legitimate right of the petitioner transfer likely to be affected as per^{G.O.Ms.No.170}

¶41

Page 2 of 6

¶42

SRS,J wp_19635_2024 ^

¶43

dt;22.08.2024 which is extended vide G.O.Ms.No.84 dt:29.08.2024^by extending the time upto 15.09.2024 is illegal, arbitrary,^{capriciousand} violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution^{ofIndiaandalso} contrary to G.O.Ms.No.257 dt;10.06.1999. G.O.Ms.No.679 dtl.l 1.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.529 dt:19.08.2008. Consequently^direct the respondents to consider the petitioner’s transfer^{intermsofabove} mentioned G.Os and to pass such other order or orders...”

¶44

Heard Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for^{thepetitioner,} and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader^{forServicesappearing} for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶45

(a) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit^{thatthepetitioneris} working as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer at Ichapuram.^Hewould submit that government-issued G.O.Ms.No.75 Finance^{(HR.I-PLG.&POLICY)} Department, dated 17.08.2024 prescribing the guidelines^{regardingtransfers} and postings of employees. G.O.Ms.No.170 Revenue (Commercial^Taxes) Department, dated 22.08.2024 in General Guidelines,^{clauseNo.9speaksthat} the request of employees with any charges/ACBA/igilance^casespending against them shall not be considered for transfer.

¶46

(b) Learned counsel would submit that a charge memo, vide Memo NO.7794A/IG-TR/1/2011-8, dated 16.02.2015, was issued^{tothepetitionerand} the same is pending. He would submit that the inquiry^{hastobecompleted} within, three months in simple cases and within six^months in complicated cases, as prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration^(Services-C)

•fJ

Page 3 of 6

SRS, J wp_19635_2024

Department, dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022.

¶52

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services submitted the instructions of the Joint Commissioner (ST) (FCA), Visakhapatnam I Nodal Division wherein it was stated that the petitioner has not pleaded any prejudice caused to him on account of the delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings. He would also submit that mere delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings is not a ground to consider the case of the petitioner for transfer.

¶53

¶54

The point for consideration is;

¶55

Whether the delay on the part of the respondents in not concluding the inquiry in terms of G.O.Ms Nos.679 dated 01.11.2008^{andG.O.Ms.No.91} dated 12.09.2002, take away the right of the petitioner to request transfer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024?

¶56

An employee’s request to transfer or to post at a particular^placeof choice \s not an inherent right of the employee. 7. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91 dated 12.09.2022 fixing the timelines^i.e., three months and six C, months in simple and complicated cases respectively to complete the inquiry. In the said G.O. it was stated that where the inquiries are not completed as

¶57

Page 4 of 6

¶58

SRS, J wp_19635_2024

¶59

per the allowed time, the Secretary to Government of^the administrative Department concerned at the Government level shall review all the disciplinary cases against employees in respect of the Head of the Departments under his control and also at the field^{levelandshallsubmita} note to the Chief Secretary to Government duly recording^{thereasonsfornon} completion of the inquiries and to circulate the same^{totheHon’bleChief} Minister.

¶60

In clause 11 of G.O.Ms.No.91, it was stated that the Inquiring Authorities are liable for disciplinary action for their failure to complete the inquiry within the stipulated period. The Government Orders are issued fixing the timeline to expedite the inquiry process.

¶61

Despite the Government Orders, the respondents' authorities^failedto conclude the inquiry initiated against the petitioner. The delay on the part of the respondent authority in concluding the inquiry, the petitioner shall not be penalized.

¶62

In the State of Punjab and Others vs. Chaman Lai Goyal\ the Hon’ble Apex Court regarding the promotion when a charge is pending observed as under:

¶63

/ /

¶64

\19SS) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570

¶65

Page 5 of 6

¶66

SRS,J wp_19635_2024

¶67

.... It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed.^At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion...”

¶68

Though the above case is related to promotion, however,^oneshould not be oblivious to the ratio. Considering the said ratio in Chamanlal’s case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition.

¶69

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner’s case for transfer, if he is entitled, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 22.08.2024, without % reference to the charge memo dated 16.02.2015. No order as to costs.

¶70

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

¶71

//TRUE COPY//

¶72

Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶73

To,

¶74

SECTION O^ICER

¶75