D Srujana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D SRUJANA, W/O.G. PRATAP KUMAR AGED 49 YRS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT MANAGER (ACCOUNTS), A.P. STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD. KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238

¶13

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, OFFICE SITUATED AT H.NO. 10152/1 IV V FLOOR, SRI SAI TOWERS, ASHOK NAGAR, BESIDE SIRIS COMPANY, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA-520007.

¶14

THE VICE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD., OFFICE SITUATED AT H.NO. 10-152/1, IV V FLOOR, SRI SAI TOWERS, ASHOK NAGAR, BESIDE SIRIS COMPANY, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA-520007

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 respondents in not

¶17

considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of District Civil Supplies Manager, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited in the Final Seniority List vide Reference No.P.Admn.A4/Final Seniority List/Sr. Officer Gr.ll/2026, dated 28.04.2026, on the ground of minor punishment of CENSURE imposed by the 3^rd respondent in the Proceedings No.P.Admn.A2/741/2022, dated 25.04.2026, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and violation of Principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Articles 14, 16 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Judgments of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WP.No.3312 of 2019 and WP.No.4612 of 2019 and to consequently direct the respondents to forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next level post i.e.. District Civil Supplies Manager by including her name in the Final Seniority List dated 28.04.2026 without referring to the minor punishment of CENSURE imposed by the 3^rd No.P.Admn.A2/741/2022,dated 25.04.2026, in the interest of justice and to pass such other order and further order or order as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case 3^rd respondent in the Proceedings

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶19

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 next level post i.e.. District Civil Supplies Manager by including her name in the Final Seniority List dated 28.04.2026 without referring to the minor punishment of CENSURE imposed by the 3'^^ respondent in the Proceedings No.P.Admn.A2/741/2022, dated 25.04.2026, during the pendency of the writ petition in the interest of justice and to pass

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.K JYOTHI PRASAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The Writ Petition is field under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the

¶27

following relief:

¶28

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of District Civil Supplies Manager, A.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited in the Final Seniority List vide Reference No.P.Admn.A4/Final Seniority List/Sr. Officer Gr.ll/2026, dated 28.04.2026, on the ground of minor punishment of CENSURE imposed by the 3^rd respondent in the Proceedings No.P.Admn.A2/741/2022, dated 25.04.2026, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and violation of Principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Judgments of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WP.No.3312 of 2019 and WP.No.4612 of 2019 and to consequently direct the respondents to forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next level post i.e.. District Civil Supplies Manager by including her name in the Final Seniority List dated 28.04.2026 without referring to the minor punishment of CENSURE imposed by the 3^rd No.P.Admn.A2/741/2022,dated 25.04.2026, in the interest of justice and to pass such other order and further order or order as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case 3rd respondent in the Proceedings…”

¶29

The Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of District Civil Supplies Manager, A.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited in the Final Seniority List dated 28.04.2026 on the ground of minor punishment of CENSURE imposed by the 3^rd respondent in his proceedings dated 25.04.2026, by framing different charges as illegal, arbitrary.

¶30

The core issue involved in this Writ Petition is that the respondents have considered and modified the punishment of censure. Once the punishment is modified as censure, the respondents have to consider treating that censure is not currency of punishment for a period of one year. The said aspect was

¶31

considered by the full Bench of Madras High Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of Composite High Court in Ch.Prakash Rao vs. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, State of Telangana in W.A.No.1158 of 2016 in which the operative portion reads as follows:

¶32

“A Full Bench of the Madras High Court, in Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and another v. V.Rani (2011 (3) CTC 129) had an occasion to consider whether the penalty of censure would have a currency. The same was also with reference in Government instructions that gave a currency of one year for the penalty of censure insofar as the employees of the Government of Tamilnadu were concerned. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the instructions that gave currency of one year to the penalty of censure.

¶33

Though the Government Memo or circular providing for a currency of one year for the penalty of censure is not under challenge before us, the fact remains that giving currency of one year for a penalty of censure would tantamount to equating the penalty to postponement of increment for one year. Censure or warning is normally considered as a lesser penalty than the penalty of postponement of increment for one year. Therefore, both cannot have the same period of currency.

¶34

Since the learned Government Pleader seeks time to file counter on the above aspects, we adjourn the matter to 19.12.2016. However, in the meantime, the respondents shall take it that the penalty of censure shall not be treated as having a currency for a period of one year and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without reference to the currency of penalty and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. This is subject to the satisfaction of the other parameters.”

¶35

Considering the above observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench and

¶36

without going into the merits, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, without taking the censure of punishment as currency of the particular paragraphs mentioned above and pass appropriate orders.

¶37