Disposed

Sabbavarapu Srinivas v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2024WP/19828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition directed respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to pending charge memos, relying on settled law that employees cannot be penalized for delays in disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to pending charge memos.

Sabbavarapu Srinivas 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

TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19828 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sabbavarapu Srinivas, S/o. Appala Naidu, Aged about 61 years, Occ Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer (FAC), TW Eng. Dept., Sector8, MVP Colony, Vishakapatnam, R/o. 2"^ Floor, NSSK Enclave, Visalakshmi nagar, Vishakapatnam.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by its Principal Secretary, Tribal

¶12

Welfare Engineering Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶13

The Engineer-In-Chief, Tribal Welfare Department, Revenue Colony, Labbipeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the

¶16

Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memos pending against him vide (i) Charge Memo.No.A4-10082/98-PVP dt.06.09.2000 (ii) Charge Memo NO.B3/4122/2001-VSP dt.08.02.2006, (iii) Charge Memo in Proc., NO.CB3/6258/2001- VSP dt.11.10.2010, (iv) Charge Memo in Proc., No.CB3A/&E-Alert NO.56/PDR/206/2014-2 dt.31.07.2014, (v) Charge Memo in Proc., NO.B2/CB3/202/2014-4 dt.17.06.2014, (vi) Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.220 SW (TW.Ser.ll) Dept., dt 22.07.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents to promote^{thePetitioner} to the post of Superintending Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memos pending against him, from the date of his eligibility with all service and monetary^benefits.

¶17

lA NO: 1 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 case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memos pending against him pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI POODATTU AMARENDER

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010392882024

r-T ■

[3331]

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 19828/2024

¶27

Between:

¶28

Sabbavarapu Srinivas ...PETITIONER

¶29

AND

¶30

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

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

:: ORDER ::

¶36

The above writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶37

India seeking the following relief:

¶38

“...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memos pending against him vide (i) Charge Memo^{No.A4-10082/98-}

¶39

Page 2 of 6

¶40

SRS.J ' W.P.No.19828 of 2024

¶41

PVP, dt:06.09.2000. (ii) Charge Memo No.B3/4122/2001-VSP, dt:08.02.2006, (iii) Charge Memo in Proc.,No.CB3/6258/2001-VSP dt:11.10.2010, (iv) Charge Memo in Proc.,No.CB3A/&E-Alert No.56/PDR/206/2014-2 dt:31.07.2014, (v) Charge Memo in Proc.,No.B2/CB3/202/2014-4 dt:17.06.2014, (vi) Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.220 SW (TW.Ser.ll) Dept dt:22.07.2022 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Superintending Engineer without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memos pending against him from the date of his eligibility with all service and monetary benefits and to pass such other order or orders ...”

¶42

Heard Sri P.Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government^{PleaderforServices} appearing for the respondents.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a seniority list was prepared vide Memo No.2525632/TW.Ser/A1/2024-2, dated 05.09.2024 (EX.P30), wherein the petitioner is placed at S.No.15.^{Healsowouldsubmit} that the petitioner, presently is working as Superintendent Engineer on Full Additional Charge. He also would submit that as per the seniority list, the petitioner is entitled to be promoted. However, six charge memos are pending against the petitioner from the year 2000. Despite the inquiry reports, the disciplinary authority has not passed orders as of today. Learned counsel by placing reliance upon the judgments of The Government^{ofAndhraPradesh} represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department^andanother V. A.Rajeswara Reddy, Deputy Collector^ and State of Punjab and Others

¶44

2010 (4) ALT 374

¶45

SRS,J W.P.No. 19828 of 2024

¶46

Page 3 of 6

¶47

V. Chaman Lai Goyal^, would contend that the petitioner’s case can be considered without reference to the charge memos. He also would submit that earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19154 of 2024, and the same was disposed of on 02.09.2024 directing the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders based on the inquiry report therein within three months.

¶48

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services would fairly submit that given the settled legal position, the case of the petitioner will be considered as per the ratio laid down in Chaman Lai Goyal’s case.

¶49

As seen from the material available on record, six charge memos are pending against the petitioner vide (i) No.A4-10082/98-PVP,^{dated06.09.2000} (Ex.P2), (ii) No. B3/4122/2001-VSP, dated 08.02.2006 (Ex.P7), (iii) Procgs.No.CB3/6528/2001-VSP dated 11.10.2010 (Ex.P12), (iv) Procgs.No.CB3A/&E-Alert No.56/PDR/206/2014-2 dated 31.07.2014 (EX.P16), (v) Procgs.No.B2/CB3/202/2014-4 dated 17.06.2014 (Ex.P20) and (vi) G.O.Rt.No.220 Social Welfare (TW.Ser.ll) Department,^{dated22.07.2022.} The inquiry in respect of aforementioned charge memos was completed, and the inquiry officer submitted the reports to the disciplinary authority, with a finding that the guilt against the petitioner is not proved. The disciplinary authority has to pass appropriate orders. However, for the reasons best known, the orders are not passed.

¶50

^ (JI995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570

¶51

¶52

Page 4 of 6

¶53

SRS,J ' W.P.No.19828 of 2024

¶54

In Chaman Lai Goyal’s case, at para No. 12, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as follows;

¶55

“ At the same time, it is directed that the respondent^should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference^toandwithout taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately. ’’

¶56

In Rajeswara Reddy’s case, at para No.6, the Division Bench of

¶57

Composite High Court observed as follows:

¶58

“ Since the petitioners did not complete the departmental proceedings against the respondent even after lapse^{of morethanone} and half years, the Tribunal has rightly directed consideration^ofthe case of the respondent for promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, and no interference is called^{forwiththesaid} order. ”

¶59

Ordinarily, an employee will not be considered for promotion if disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him based on serious allegations. However, an employee cannot be denied promotion by keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods.

¶60

The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, and thereafter^G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, fixing timelines to conclude the inquiry. In the case at hand, the respondent^{authoritiesflouted} \ / I

¶61

SRS,J W.P.No.19828 of 2024

¶62

Page 5 of 6

¶63

G.Os., deliberately. For the fault on the part of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner shall not be penalized.

¶64

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 for promotion, if the petitioner is in the zone of consideration, without reference to the aforementioned charge memos. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

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

¶66

//TRUE COPY//

¶67

SD/. K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶68

To,

¶69

SECTION OFFICER

¶70

The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Engineering Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur^District.

¶71

The Engineer-In-Chief, Tribal Welfare Department, Revenue Colony, Labbipeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶72

One CC to Sri Poodattu Amarender, Advocate [OPUC]

¶73

Two CCs to GP for Services II, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two C.D Copies MBT

HIGH COURT

DATED:10/09/2024

ORDER

WP.No.19828of2024

h 19 SEP M?*!
to
Current Section ^

¶79

DISPOSING THE W.P

¶80

WITHOUT COSTS

Sabbavarapu Srinivas v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabbavarapu Srinivas 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yaddanapudi Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bellamkonda Dinesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G Vedavalli Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

G Narasinga Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Presingu Khadar Mastan, Vs Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

Sri. Arveti Sai Pratap, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh