Allowed

R Padmaja Rani v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2026WP/9478/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an Assistant Audit Officer, challenged the respondents' decision to defer her promotion to Audit Officer due to a pending departmental enquiry. The court held that her case for promotion can be considered under G.O.Ms.No.257 (1999) and directed the respondents to evaluate her eligibility subject to requisite qualifications.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's case for promotion to Audit Officer subject to requisite qualifications under G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999.

R Padmaja Rani Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010189392026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3460]

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 18^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 9478/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

R PADMAJA RANI, W/O S.SRIKANTH, AGE 52YEARS, OCC AUDIT OFFICER INCHARGE O/O THE DISTRICT AUDIT OFFICER,STATE AUDIT, RAJAMAHNERAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL FINANCE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH- 522238.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI- 522238. GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH

¶15

THE DIRECTORATE OF STATE AUDIT ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT522503.

¶16

THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, STATE AUDIT, ZONE II, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT- 534001.

¶17

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 topleased to issue a suitable Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed action of the respondents in deferring my name by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the seniority list for the post of Audit Officer under the guise of untenable charges as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider my name for promotion to the post of Audit Officer and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 pleased to direct the respondents to consider my name for promotion to the post of Audit Officer pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶22

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶23

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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Audit Officer in terms of GOMs.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) department, dt. 10-061999 pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the existing vacancy and to pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.A RAJENDRA BABU

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶28

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.9478 of 2026

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Respondent-Authorities in not promoting the Petitioner to the post of Audit Officer on account of pendency of departmental enquiry, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶35

The Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Auditor on 06.07.1997 in the office of the District Audit Office, Kakinada, and was subsequently promoted as Senior Auditor and Assistant Audit Officer in the years 2002 and 2018, respectively. At present, the Petitioner is working as Assistant Audit Officer in the office of the District Audit Officer, State Audit, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari District. It is stated that she is now eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Audit Officer.

¶36

While so, a Charge Memorandum was issued to the Petitioner vide Roc.No.275/A1/2025-26, dated 03.01.2026, alleging that the Petitioner, while working as DAO (I/c), Rajamahendravaram, has consistently abused the authority as DDO and systematically harassed the staff in the O/o. DAO, Rajamahendravaram, by withholding salaries, annual grade increments and other benefits. It was further alleged that the Petitioner did not approve physical copies of hundreds of audit reports, did not facilitate the issue of special letters, failed to achieve the mandated

¶37

¶38

targets as per the approved annual action plans, acted prejudicially to office security and discipline, and showed willful disobedience to the orders of superior authorities.

¶39

It is stated that after serving the above charge memo, the Petitioner submitted statement of defence refuting the aforesaid charge and enquiry is stated to be pending. While so, the promotions for the post of Audit Officer is being considered and the apprehension of the Petitioner is that her case would not be considered for promotion in view of the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry. It was in that context, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶40

Having heard the respective submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the Petitioner for the post of Audit Officer can be considered for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999.

¶41

The Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:-

¶42

i) The Respondents are directed to consider the Petitioner’s

¶43

case for promotion to the Post of Audit Officer, subject to the Petitioner possessing requisite qualifications in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999.

¶44

ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

¶46

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

¶47

closed.

¶48

________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶49

Date: 18.09.2026 chs

¶50

¶51

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶52

172

¶53

WRIT PETITION No.9478 of 2026

¶54

Dated: 18.09.2026

¶55

chs

R Padmaja Rani v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Padmaja Rani v. the State of Ap

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