Disposed¶66

D Raghurami Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Aug 2025WP/4877/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Promotion denial; pending disciplinary Charge Memos G.O.Rt.Nos.1671, 1678, 1685, 1699, 1722 dt.12.07.2022 under Rule 20 A.P. Civil Services (CC&A) Rules 1991; check dam cement concrete work; Neeru-Chettu guidelines; parity with 386 exonerated Water Resources Department engineers per G.O.RT.No.100 dt.11.03.2025; Forest Department proposal dt.21.07.2025; direction to consider promotion ignoring charges; Article 226 mandamus; costs declined; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with a direction to the Respondent Authorities to consider the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer without reference to the Charge Memos in G.O.Rt.Nos.1671, 1678, 1685, 1699 and 1722 dated 12.07.2022; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶66

D Raghurami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶66

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned G.O.Rt.Nos. 1671, 1678, 1685, 1699 and 1722, Water Resource (Vig-III-2) Department, dated 12.07.2022 (Charge Memos) is illegal and arbitrary. +1 more

¶49

Ratio / Principle

Taking note that 386 Officers of the Water Resources Department were exonerated from disciplinary proceedings and that the Forest Department had sent a recommendation proposal on 21.07.2025 to drop disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and similarly placed persons, the Court held that the Petitioner ought to be considered for promotion.

¶66

Key takeaways

The Respondent Authorities are directed to consider the Petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer without reference to the Charge Memos issued vide G.O.Rt.Nos. 1671, 1678, 1685, 1699 and 1722, Water Resource (Vig-III-2) Department, dated 12.07.2022.ratio¶67

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Amaravati), Nyapathy Vijay, J., disposed of W.P. No. 4877 of 2024 on 06.08.2025. The petitioner, a Deputy Range Officer, sought quashing of five Charge Memos (G.O.Rt.Nos. 1671, 1678, 1685, 1699 and 1722, Water Resource (Vig-III-2) Department, dated 12.07.2022) framed under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 alleging inferior-quality cement concrete work in check dam construction contrary to Government Norms and Neeru-Chettu guidelines, which blocked his promotion as Forest Range Officer. Noting that 386 Water Resources Department engineers were exonerated for the very same works by G.O.RT.No.100 dated 11.03.2025 and that the Forest Department had proposed parity treatment on 21.07.2025, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion without reference to the Charge Memos. No costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

APHC010041962024

[^■0 0^

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST A TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 4877 OF 2024

¶10

Between:

¶11

Mr. D Raghurami Reddy, S/o. D. Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged 44 years working as Deputy Range Officer TTD, Tirumala.

¶12

...Petitioner AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary to Government Environment, Forests, Science and Technology

¶14

Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its PrI. Secretary to Government Water Resources Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶16

The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Head of Forests, , PVS Land Mark, Industrial Park Mangalagiri, Guntur District.

¶17

The Chief Conservator of Forests, Guntur Circle, Guntur.AP

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

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 declaring the action of the 2ndrespondent in issuing the impugned G.O.Rt.Nos. 1671, 1678,1685, 1699 and 1722 Water

¶20

Resource (Vig-III-2) Department, dated 12.07.2022, as illegal, arbitary, void ab-initio, without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles Id, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned G.O.Rt.Nos.1671, 1678, 1685, 1699 and 1722 Water Resource(Vig-ll l-2) Department, dt. 12.07.2022, issued by the 2ndrespondent and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Forest Range Officer without reference to and withotut tailing into consideration of the charges.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 3, to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer by suspending the G.O.Rt.Nos.1671, 1678, 1685, 1699 and 1722 Water Resource(Vig-lll-2) Department, dated 12.07.2022 issue^ by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ / petition. ''

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 here in to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer without reference to and without taking into consideration of the charges in G.O.Rt.No.s,1671,1678.1685.1699 and 1722 nd Water Resource(Vig-lll-2) departnnent.dt.12.07.2022issued by the 2 respondent

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order:

¶27

¶28

APHC010041962024

¶29

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

¶30

[3460]

¶31

WEDNESDAY.THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶32

PRESENT

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO: 4877/2024

Between:

D Raghurami Reddy

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶40

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶42

1.MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.GP FOR SERVICES I (AP)

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

¶47

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO: 4877/2094

¶49

The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the 2 respondent in issuing the impugned G.O.Rt.Nos. 1671, 1678,1685, 1699 and 1722 Water Resource (Vig-lll-2) Department, dated 12.07.2022, as illegal and arbitrary

¶50

The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are as follows;

¶51

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Section Officer and thereafter he was promoted as Deputy Range Officer. The next available post for promotion to the Petitioner is Forest Range Officer. While so, Charge Memos were issued to the Petitioner vide G.O.R.T.Nos.1671, 1678 1685, 1699 and 1722, dated 12.07.2022 wherein solitary articles of charge were framed against the Petitioner under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (CC & A), Rules, 1991. Though the Petitioner had submitted his explanation to the said Charge Memos, the same were pending. 3. The Articles of Charge were that the Petitioner had recommended payment for inferior quality of cement concrete work in construction of check dam and caused loss to the

¶52

¶53

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO: 4877/2024

¶55

The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the

¶56

2^"' respondent in issuing the impugned G.O.Rt.Nos. 1671, 1678,1685, 1699 and 1722 Water Resource (Vig-ill-2) Department, dated 12.07.2022, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶57

The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition^are as follows:

¶58

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Forest Section Officer and thereafter he was promoted as Deputy Range^Officer. The next available post for promotion to the Petitioner^is Forest Range Officer. While so, Charge Memos were issued to the Petitioner vide G.O.R.T.Nos.1671, 1678, 1685, 1699 and 1722, dated 12.07.2022 wherein solitary articles of charge^wereframed against the Petitioner under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (CO & A), Rules, 1991. Though the Petitioner had submitted his explanation to the said Charge Memos, the same were pending.

¶59

The Articles of Charge were that the Petitioner had recommended payment for inferior quality of cement concrete work in construction of check dam and caused loss to the

¶60

¶61

Government exchequer in violation of Government Norms and Neeru-Chettu guidelines.

¶62

Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the work undertaken was principally by the Water Resources Department and the entire work including tenders in construction of check dam was undertaken by the employees of Water Resources Department and the role of the Petitioner in the work was only to supervise. While so, the Respondent/State which had initiated disciplinary enquiry against 386 Engineers/Officers in the Water Resources Department with regard to the very same works, had issued G.O.R.T.No.100 Water Resources (Vig.ll (V&E) Department, dated 11.03.2025 dropping the disciplinary action against all the 386 Engineers of Water Resources Department and therefore, the same may be extended to the Petitioner. 5. Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that for passing the proceedings against the Petitioner and similarly situated employees working ini the Forest Department, proposals were sent to the Government on 21.07.2025 to take necessary action on par with G.O.R.T.No.100, dated 11.03.2025 and the issue is pending before the Government.

¶63

¶64

¶65

The grievance of the Petitioner to file the present Writ Petition is on account of the fact that promotions are being denied to the post of Forest Range Officer and the Charge^Memosissued in the year 2022 is coming in the way for considering^thecaseof the Petitioner for promotion.

¶66

Flaving heard the respective counsel and taking note^ofthe fact that 386 Officers in Water Resources Department^havebeen exonerated from the disciplinary proceedings and the recommendation proposal sent by the Forest Department to drop disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner and similarly placed on 21.07.2025, the Petitioner ought to be considered^for promotion. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of with the following^direction:

¶67

i) The Respondent Authorities are directed to consider^the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the Post of Forest Range Officer without reference to the Charge Memos issued video G.O.Rt.Nos.1671, 1678,1685, 1699 and 1722 Water Resource (VigIII-2) Department, dated 12.07.2022.

(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶72

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

¶73

Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1- The Special Chief Secretary to Government Environment State of ndhra Pradesh, Forests, Science and Technology Department, A.P.

¶79

Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶80

The PrI. Secretary to Government Water Resources Department, State

¶81

of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati , Guntur

¶82

District.

¶83

The Principal Chief Conservato r of Forests Head of Forests » » PVS Land Mark, Industrial Park Mangalagiri, GunturDistrict,

¶84

The Chief Conservato r of Forests, Guntur Circle, Guntur.AP

¶85

One CC to Sri. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi Advocate [OPUC]

¶86

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

¶87

Two CD Copies

high court DATED;06/08/2025

¶92

ORDER WP NO. 4877 OF 2024

¶93

g( 2 I AUG 2025
o>!

¶94

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Issuance of five Charge Memos vide G.O.Rt.Nos. 1671, 1678, 1685, 1699 and 1722, Water Resource (Vig-III-2) Department, dated 12.07.2022, framing solitary articles of charge against the Petitioner, challenged as illegal and arbitrary.¶49
Water Resource (Vig-III-2) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh (2nd respondent) · 12.07.2022
Prior proceeding
Service career: Petitioner appointed as Forest Section Officer, promoted as Deputy Range Officer; the next available promotional post is Forest Range Officer.¶51
Prior proceeding
Solitary articles of charge framed against the Petitioner under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 vide the impugned Charge Memos dated 12.07.2022.¶51
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted his explanation to the Charge Memos; the proceedings remained pending.¶51
Prior proceeding
Allegations in the Articles of Charge: recommending payment for inferior quality cement concrete work in construction of a check dam causing loss to the Government exchequer in violation of Government Norms and Neeru-Chettu guidelines.¶61
Prior proceeding
Per learned counsel for the Petitioner, the State initiated disciplinary enquiry against 386 Engineers/Officers of the Water Resources Department for the very same works.¶62
Prior proceeding
G.O.RT.No.100, Water Resources (Vig.II (V&E)) Department, dated 11.03.2025 dropped the disciplinary action against all 386 Engineers of the Water Resources Department; the Petitioner sought extension of the same benefit.¶62
Prior proceeding
Per the learned Assistant Government Pleader, proposals were sent to the Government on 21.07.2025 for action on par with G.O.RT.No.100, dated 11.03.2025 qua the Petitioner and similarly situated Forest Department employees; the matter was pending before the Government.¶62
Prior proceeding
Grievance: promotions to the post of Forest Range Officer were being denied as the 2022 Charge Memos stood in the way of considering the Petitioner's case.¶65

D Raghurami Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Raghurami Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Talluri Meri Florence Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

P Raghavulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pasala Smithner Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pulagura Madhu Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ch Srinivasulu Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Chilukoti Ravi Kumar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh