SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(AP) 48

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Kakarla Kasaiah - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 25410 of 2020
Decided On : 18-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Subba Rao Korrapati.
For the Respondent: GP For Services I.

Point of law: Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 are silent as to the exact date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. But the proceedings prescribed under Rule 20 (3) can be said to be date of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Though the date of initiation of proceedings is not specifically described under CCA Rules, Rule 9 (6) of the A.P.Revised Pension Rules prescribed the starting point of initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Rule 9 (6) is extracted hereunder for better appreciation.

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991 - Sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rules 24 - Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 14, 16 and 226 - Nature of Writ of Mandamus - Issue an appropriate writ order - Integrated seniority list of services - Post of Deputy - Petitioner was appointed as Typist on compassionate grounds on in Revenue Unit of District later promoted as Senior Assistant in month of posted as Revenue Inspector in office of District ever since he has been working to utmost satisfaction of one and all- While matter stood thus respondent No-3 vide his proceedings submitted a report to respondent No-1 to initiate disciplinary action against several persons including petitioner alleging that petitioner submitted a false report to recommending for conversion of land in village from agriculture to non agricultural purposes and matter is pending before respondent No-1 for concluding disciplinary proceedings against several Officials purportedly involved

Finding of court: It is clear that case of petitioner would not fall within purview of General Administration (Services - C) Department and it would fall within purview of G-O-Ms- General Administration (SER-C) Department for reason that departmental proceedings are initiated long back but disciplinary proceedings were initiated on two years will expire by Department - But petitioner filed objections for non-inclusion of his name in seniority list on ground that period of two (2) years commenced from of initiation of disciplinary proceedings not from appointing inquiry officer- Understanding of petitioner is contrary to rules and departmental proceedings are deemed to have been commenced only from of service of charge memo Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department not prior to that

Result: Writ petition dismissed

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.A1/423/2020 dated 18.11.2020 issued by respondent No.3 as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the panel year 2019-2020, irrespective of pendency of departmental proceedings, and promote him.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Typist on compassionate grounds on 04.05.2006 in the Revenue Unit of Prakasam District, later promoted as Senior Assistant in the month of September 2012 and posted as Mandal Revenue Inspector in the office of Tahsildar, Santanutalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District, ever since, he has been working to the utmost satisfaction of one and all. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 vide his proceedings Rc/E4/2198/2010 dated 13-03-2016 submitted a report to respondent No.1 to initiate disciplinary action against several persons, including the petitioner alleging that the petitioner submitted a false report to the Tahsildar, Santanutalapadu recommending for conversion of land in Santanuthalpadu village from agriculture to non agricultural purposes and the matter is pending before respondent No.1, for concluding disciplinary proceedings against several Officials purportedly involved.

3. Respondent No.3 prepared the integrated seniority list of the services of Junior Assistants/Typists joined in Prakasam District Revenue Unit from 01.09.2012 to 31.08.2016 vide Proceedings Rc.A2/152/2006 dated 19.08.2017, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No.8. While the matter stood thus, in pursuance of the report submitted by respondent No.3 in the year, 2016, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.260 Revenue (Vigilance-I) Department dated 28.03.2019, ordering as under

    "in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rules 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1991, the disciplinary authority

1. That the disciplinary action against the said Government servants shall be taken in common proceedings;

2. That the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue Department shall function as disciplinary authority for the purpose of common proceedings and shall competent to impose the penalties specified under Rule 9 of APCS(CC&A) Rules R/w Rule 9 of APRP Rules 1980 and

3. That the procedure prescribed in Rule 20 & 21 of the APCS (CC&A) Rules shall be followed in the said proceedings.

4. Immediately, on the same day, respondent No.1 vide G.O.RT, No.450 (Revenue) (Vigilance.1) Department dated 28.03.2019 issued articles of charge to the petitioner and 8 others and the same were served by respondent No.3 through the District Revenue Officer vide Rc.Al/e-Office No.19037/2019 dated 04.05.2019. Respondent No.1 vide his proceedings G.O.RT No.155 dated 22.01.2020 was pleased to appoint the Joint Collector-III, Prakasam District as Inquiry Officer. Later, respondent No.1 was pleased to appoint the District Revenue Officer, Ongole, as Presenting officer vide G.O.Rt.No.156 dated 22.01.2020 to present the case before the inquiring authority on behalf of the Disciplinary authority in support of the articles of charges framed against the petitioner and others.

5. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.3 vide his notice Rc.A1/423/2020 dated 13.10.2020 issued provisional eligibility list of Senior Assistants working in Revenue Unit of Prakasam District for the period from 01.09.2019 to 31.08.2020 calling for objections for affecting Adhoc/temporary promotions to the cadre of Deputy Tahsildar, in which the name of the petitioner was not shown. Immediately, he made a representation to re

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top