Disposed

R. Ramakrishna v. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration and 3 Others

Telangana HC16 Apr 2021WP/1409/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court directed the municipal administration to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to Manager/Revenue Officer Category-III. The court held that since no charge of misconduct was framed or conducted, the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings could not bar promotion, ordering the authorities to follow relevant Government Orders within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The High Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Manager/Revenue Officer Category-III in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, and G.O.

R. Ramakrishna Vs The Commissioner and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1409^OF2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

R.Ramakrishna,S/o.Giriraj,Age.33years,seniorAssistant,Bodhan Municipality, Bodhan,^{NizamabadDistrict.}

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The commissioner^{and Director of trlunicipal Administration,A C.Guards,Masab} Tank, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Regional^{Director cumAppellatecommissioner of Municipal Administration,} A.C.Guards, HYderabad.

¶12

The Bodhan^{Municipality, Rept.by its Commissioner, Bodhan Municipality'} Bodhan, Nizamabad^District

¶13

The State of Telangana,^{Rept. By its Principal Secretary, Municipal} Administration and Urban^{Development Department, secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Articte^{226 of the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be-pleased} to issue writ, order or^{direction more padicularly one in the nature of writ of} ,unouru. declaring^{the action of the 1st respondentin not considering the case of} tf.,"^{p"iitione1. for prJmotionto the post of Manager/Revenue OfficerCategory-lllon} i;1" iot"^gro;"d that^{the Charge lvlemo.vide Lr.No.'161/20171A3/RDMA,dt. 101112019} ii-penOiig, though the^{cha-rgeleveled against the petitioner r9t.} !l31t|9|'"d ,Ur"n.L fias Oein^{regulated as EOL vide Proceedings Rc.No.C1/899/2020 dl'} 6t5l2o2o of the^{3rd respondentas void, illegal, arbitraryand unconstitutio.naland} violative of Article^{'14 and 16 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the} i.1 il.ponO"nt to consider^{the case of the petitionerfor promotionto the post of} trrtana96rlRevenue officer^{category-lll without reJerenceto ChargeMemo.vide} Lr.ruo]totlzotzIA3/RDMA,^{il.1:ol1't2o1gof the 2nd respondentby takinginto} conSideration the^{ProceedingsRc.No.C1/899/2020,d|.61512020of the 3rd} i"rJ""J""i^{*f'erein the charg'eleveled againstthe petitioneris of unauthorized} absence has been^regulated

¶16

IA NO: 1 0F 2021

¶17

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition'if'e-nigf'Court may be pleased to direct} the 1st respondent^{to consrde,ih" '.r." of the petitioner for promotion to the postof} i,r"nug"r/R"u"nue^{Officei CaGgory-ttt} -without^{reJerenceto Charge Memo vide} Lr.No.161/2017/A3/RDMA,^{ii.l"o,titzorcof the 2nd respondentbv takinginto} consideration^{tne proceeO]ngt - n" No Ct l8ggl2}!}' dl' 6t5l2O2O- of the 3rd} resoondent wherein^{th" .h,;d;teveted against the petitioneris of unauthorized}

¶18

absence has been^{regulated pending disposal ot WP'}

¶19

Counsel for^{the Petitioner:SRI' S'JAGADISH} ;;;;=;i ior^{the RespondentNos' 1,2 & 4: GP FoR MUNICIPAL} AOTVTIT.TiSTNNTOPM^{& URBAN DEVELOPMENT} _ a;;;";ii";the^{Respondent No' 3: SRI' r' cHANDRASEKHAR} The Court^{madethe following:}

¶20

HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶21

w.P.No.140 9 of2021

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶24

to issue writ, otder or direction more particrrlatly one in the natute of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1,, respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Manager/Revenue Officcr Category-Ill on the sole ground that the Chatge Memo vide Lt.No.761/2017 /A3IRDMA, dt 70/7/20t9, is pending though the charge leveled against the petitioner for unauthorized absence has been regulated as EOL vide Proceedings Rc,No. Cll899/2020, dt 6/S/ZOZ0 of the jd respondent as void, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of A-rticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently difect the l't respondent to considcr the case of the petitioner for promotion to the posr of Manngcr/Revenue Oflicer Catcgory-Ill withour referencc to Charge Memo vide Lr.No.l61/2017 / AjIRDMA, dr 10/t/ZOtg of the 2.a respondent by taking into consideration the proceedings Rc.No. C1/899/2020 dt 6/5/2020 of the 3,,r respondent wherein the charge levcled against the petitionet is of unauthorized absence has been regulated and pass such other order or orders mav decm fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.,,

¶25

Heard learned counsel on either side.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as Senior Assistant, and that though he is eligible for promotion to the post of Manager/Revenue Officer Category_Ill, the respondents are not considering his case on the premise of pendency of charge memo.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the pedrioner contends that the State d6virnment has raken a policy decision in

¶28

termsofG.o.Ms'No.66,GeneralAdministration(Services.C) Department,^{dated30-01-1991'wherein it was directed that in} respect^{ofthe employees who are facingdisciplinary} proceedings^{and whose cases fall under the group referredin} para 2 (iii)^{of the said GO, the promotion/appointmentby} transfer^{to the next higher post shall be deferred orrly whena} charge^{of misconductwas framed by the competent authoriry} and served^{on the delinquentofficer concernedor a charge} sheet^{has been filed against him in a criminal Court as the} case may^{be. Learned counsel further contends that the State} Government^{has takena policy decision in G'O'Ms'No'257'} dated^{10.06.99,whereinit was directed to consider the case of} the employees^{againstwhom disciplinaryproceedingsare} pending^{in accordancewith the guidelines framedthereunder'}

¶29

LearnedGovernmentPleaderappearingforrespondents contends^{that case of the petitioner would be considered in} terms^{ofG'O'Ms'No'257' dated 10'06'1999 and that} appropriate^{orders rvould be passed'}

¶30

Having^{consideredthe rival submissionsmade by the} learnedcounseloneitherside,thisCourtisoftheviewthat ends of iustice^{would be met if a direction is given to the} respondents^{toconsider the case of the petitionerfor}

¶31

¶32

promotion to the post of Manager/Revenue Officer Category-IIL

¶33

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the posr of Manager/Revenue Of{icer Category-IlI strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 70.06.7999 and also G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any shall stand

¶35

closed.

¶36

SDi.I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶37

,TRUE COPY//

¶38

)u,___.

¶39

SECTION OFFICER