Ragala Venkata Uday Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ragala Venkata Uday Kumar, S/o Kanaka Raju, Aged about^61years, Occ; Panchayat Secretary-Gr.ll, O/o Guravaripalem Gram^Panchayt, Kalidindi Mandal, R/o H.No. 12-158/7, Sri Nilayam, Kalidindi Mandal, Venkatapuram, Eluru District

¶13

...Appellant/Writ Petitioneiu-

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amravati, Guntur District

¶16

The Commissioner and Director of Panchayat Raj, and Rural Development, Charithasri Buildings, Nakkal Road, Suryaraopeta, Vijayawada

¶17

District Gram Panchayat Officer, Eluru District,^Eluru

¶18

The District Collector and Magistrate, Eluru District,^Eluru

¶19

...Respondents/Respondents

¶20

lA NO: 2 OF 2025^

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybepleasedto} direct the Respondents to consider the case of the^{Petitionerforpromotionto} to the charge the post of Panchayat Secretary. Grade I without reference memo dt. 29.06.2023.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M SRIKANTH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order:

¶23

[3545]

¶24

APHC010068622025 SMB r^.

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶31

WRIT APPEAL NO: 773/2025

¶32

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set-side the order of the learned single judge in W.P.No.27656 of 2024 dated-27.11.2024 and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the^{caseofthePetitioner} for promotion to the post of Panchayat Secretary, Grade I without reference to the charge memo dt. 29.06.2023 and pass

¶33

Between:

¶34

1.RAGALA VENKATA UDAY KUMAR, S/0 KANAKA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC PANCHAYAT SECRETARY-GR.II 0/0 GURAVARIPALEM GRAM PANCHAYT, KALIDINDI MANDAL, R/O H.NO. 12-158/7, SRI NILAYAM, KALIDINDI MAN DAL, VENKATAPURAM, ELURU DISTRICT

¶35

...APPELLANT

¶36

AND

¶37

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶38

2 THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT RAJ, AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, CHARITHASRI BUILDINGS NAKKAL ROAD, SURYARAOPETA, VIJAYAWADA

¶39

DISTRICT GRAM PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU

¶40

4.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU

2

...RESPONDENT(S):

lA NO: 1 OF 2n?fi

staJfthr “--cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pass

¶45

lA NO: 2 OF 7^9^

¶46

stated'^fnffieaffiH^' frfa”" circumstances n elseiTnte Court may be p eased pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner or promotion to the post of Panchayat Secretary, Grade I without reference to the charge memo dt. 29.06.2023 and pass

¶47

Counsel for the Appellant:

¶48

1.M SRIKANTH

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶50

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶51

The Court made the following:

¶52

3

¶53

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

¶54

&

¶55

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

¶56

WRIT APPEAL No.773 of 2025

¶57

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devan and)

¶58

The present writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 27.11.2024 in W.P.No.27656 of 2024.

¶59

The appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed the said writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not finalizing the disciplinary proceedings and not promoting the petitioner to the post of Panchayat Secretary Grade-I on par with his junior as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of^{theConstitutionofIndia.}

¶60

Admittedly, a charge memo vide No.2069270/CPR&RD/B1/2023, dated 29.06.2023, was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 08.03.2024. An inquiry officer was appointed on 21.06.2024. Despite the appointment of an inquiry officer, the inquiry had not concluded till the filing of the writ petition.

¶61

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,^the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition at the stage of admission, with the consent of both parties,^{withadirectionto} the respondent authorities to conclude the inquiry^{intermsofG.O.Ms.No.91,} General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022.

¶62

4

¶63

The present Writ Appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner on the ground that the second part of the prayer sought in the writ petition with respect to considering him for promotion to the post of Panchayat Secretary, Grade-1 on par with his junior is not considered and no orders are passed on that aspect.

¶64

During the course of hearing, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has placed proceedings dated 19.09.2025 and would submit that in compliance with the interim orders passed by this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.A.No.773 of 2025, the inquiry officer has concluded the enquiry pending against the petitioner and submitted a report holding that the charge as “held proved”.

¶65

Learned Government Pleader further contends that final orders are also issued imposing punishment of “Cesure” and as such, the petitioner cannot be considered for promotion as Panchayat Secretary Grade-I post for a period of one year during the currency of punishment.

¶66

The proceedings dated 19.09.2025 issued by the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development is placed on record. 9. In view of the above factual position and in our considered view, no cause of action survives in the Writ Appeal for adjudication.

¶67

Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, considering the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to file appropriate petitions before the appropriate forum against the respondents

¶68

5

¶69

to ventilate his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous petitions’'pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶70

Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶71

//TRUE COPY//

¶72

SECTION OFFICER

¶73

To.