Disposed

Mahabub Subhani v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Dec 2024WP/28620/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Forest Beat Officer, challenged the delay in dropping disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent refusal to grant notional promotion. The Court directed the respondents to consider his representations for notional promotion in accordance with Government Orders within four weeks, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents to consider representations for notional promotion within four weeks in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.424.

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

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO: 28620 OF 2024

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mahabub Subhani, S/o. Sk. Mastan (Late), Age 61 years. Working as Forest Beat Officer, Hope Island, Corangi, Range (Wild Life Management), Kakinada, W.M. Division, Kakinada.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forests Science, and Technology Dept.^{AndhraPradesh} Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶10

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force), Near Old Mirchyard. Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

The Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmundry. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, (Wild Life Management),^Kakinada Division at Kakinada.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 declaring the action of the Respondents in not granting notional promotion and seniority in the post of Forest Section Officer with effect from 9-12-2020 onwards in spite of dropping Disciplinary Proceedings initiated under Article of Charges dated 31-12-2016 vide Proceedings dated 13-2-2023 in spite of making representations^and in spite of the Government Orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.424, GAD (Ser-C) Department, dated.25-5-1976, illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,

¶14

16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially^{declarethatthe} petitioner is entitled for notional promotion and seniority in the post of Forest Section Officer from 9-12-2000 with all monetary^and attendant benefits.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased be pleased to issue an Interim Direction^{forthwithconsider} the case of the petitioner in the existing vacancy of Forest Section Officer, pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. V. RAMANA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

APHC010545462024

¶21

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

¶22

[3333]

¶23

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶24

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 28620/2024

¶28

Between:

¶29

Mahabub Subhani ...PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶32

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶34

1.P V RAMANA

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶36

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

ORDER: \ This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶39

seeking the following relief;-

¶40

¶41

“....to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly^one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in not granting notional promotion and seniority in the post of Forest Section Officer with effect from 9-12-2020 onwards in spite of dropping Disciplinary Proceedings initiated under Article of Charges dated 31-12-2016 vide Proceedings dated 13-2-2023 in spite of making representations and in spite of the Government Orders contained in G.O.Ms.No.424, GAD (Ser-C) Department, dated 25-5-1976, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially declare that the petitioner is entitled for notional promotion and seniority in the post of Forest Section Officer from 9-12-2000 with all monetary^{andattendantbenefitsandto} pass....’’

¶42

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Forest Beat Officer on 10.09.2009 and his probation was declared vida proceedings dated 09.09.2010 in Rajavommangi Range. Thereafter, during the year 2015-16, while the petitioner was working at Lingamparthy Beat of Yeleswaram Section and Yeleswaram Range (SSR), Article of Charge was issued by the respondent No.4 on 31.12.2016 under Rule-20 of A.P.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, for which the petitioner has submitted an explanation and after duly conducting an enquiry, the enquiry officer has submitted his findings on 23.06.2018, stating that the charge leveled against the petitioner was not proved. Thereafter, after a lapse of five (05) years, the respondent No.2 had passed orders on 13.02.2023, by duly dropping the entire charges framed as against the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner^{isthattheForest} Beat Officers promotion list was prepared by the respondent No.4 on 28.08.2020, wherein the name of the petitioner is shown^{atSI.No.18andthe} names of Mr.E.Gopal and Mr.Y.Durga Prasad were shown^{atSI.Nos.22and}

¶43

23 respectively. But, however, in view of the pendency of the Article of Charges framed against the petitioner, though the aforesaid persons were juniors than the petitioner herein, their names were considered for promotion as Forest Section Officers on 09.12.2020, but, however, the case of the petitioner was not considered. Subsequently, after dropping of the charges against the petitioner, he submitted representations^dated 14.02.2024 and 02.11.2024 requesting the respondents to grant notional promotion to the petitioner in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.424, GA (Ser-C) Department, dated 25.05.1976. But as no orders have been passed by the respondents on the said representations, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶44

Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner^andaswellas the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶45

On a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner, it is an admitted fact that though the charges were framed against the petitioner in the year 2016, after conducting due enquiry in the year 2018 itself, the Enquiry Officer has concluded that the charge framed against the petitioner was not proved. In spite of the same, after a lapse of five (05) years, the respondent No.2 had passed orders dated 13.02.2023, duly dropping the charges framed against the petitioner. Thereafter, though the petitioner has submitted the representations on 14.02.2024 and 02.11.2024 requesting the respondents to grant notional promotion in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.424, GA (Ser-C) Department, dated 25.05.1976, the same were not considered by the respondents.

¶46

¶47

For better appreciation the relevant paragraph of the^{G.O.Ms.No.424,}

¶48

GA (Ser-C) Department, dated 25.05.1976 is extracted^hereunder;

¶49

“...4. In the event of there being an officer whose promotion has been recommended to be deferred, the vacancy that could have gone to the officer should be filled only on a purely temporary basis by the next personⁱⁿ the approved^list of candidates for promotion. If the officer concerned^is completely exonerated he should be promoted to the post filled on a temporary basis, restoring him^hisrightfui placeⁱⁿ the list of promoted officers with restoring him his rightful place in the list of promoted officers with retrospective effect. ”

¶50

On a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.424, GA (Ser-C) Department, dated 25.05.1976, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be placed in the list of the promoted officers with retrospective^{effect.Further,as} the representations made by the petitioner on 14.02.2024^{and02.11.2024are} still pending with the respondent No.3, this Court^feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders on the aforesaid representations made by^{thepetitionerin} accordance with the G.C.Ms.No.424, GA (Ser-C) Department, dated 25.05.1976 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶51

Accordingly, with the above direction, the writ petition^is disposed^of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶53

¶54

SD/- K. TATA RAO //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR < SECTION OFFICER

¶55

¶56

The Principal Secretary, Environment, Forests Science, and Technology Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur^District.

¶57

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, (Head of Forest Force), Near Old Mirchyard. Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh.

¶58

The Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmundry.

¶59

The Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry Circle, Rajahmundry.

¶60

¶61

The Divisional Forest Officer, (Wild Life Management), Kakinada Division at Kakinada.

¶62

One CC to Sri P. V. Ramana, Advocate [OPUC]

¶63

Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶64

Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

<br>

DATED:06/1 2/2024

ORDER WP.No.28620 of 2024

¶71

5 17 DEC 202'! m
O *9
, Curreni Secuon ^

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE W P WITHOUT COSTS

Mahabub Subhani v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahabub Subhani 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

P.N.Rasool, Vs The a.P.State Road Transport Corporation

Guvvala Govindu, Kurnool Dist & Another Vs Prl Secy, Panchayat Raj & Rural Devp Dept., Hyd & 8 Ot

S.R.Moorthy, Chittoor Dist Vs Vc & Md, Apsrtc, Hyd & 2 Others

Smt. Kutla Uma Vs Prl. Secy., P.R. Dept. & 5 Ors.

The Depot Secretary, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Devarakonda Sreenivasulu Vs the State of Ap