Pendency of disciplinary proceedings shall not be a bar for consideration of promotion, if the employee is otherwise eligible.

JUDGMENT

Arup Kumar Goswami, C.J. - Heard Mr. Atchutananda Dondeti, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Rajani, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.5853 of 2019. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the said writ petition.

3. The appellant/writ petitioner is an employee of Sri Durga Malleswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Indrakeeladri, Vijayawada, third respondent herein, and is functioning as Superintendent in the said Devasthanam. It appears that prior to his transfer to the third respondent-Devasthanam, he was working in Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Simhachalam, fourth respondent herein. For the alleged misconduct committed by him while working in the fourth respondent-Devasthanam, namely, colluding with the land-grabbers for bribe and cooperating for illegal constructions in the land belonging to the fourth respondent-Devasthanam, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and charge memo dated 21.11.2017 was issued framing four charges. On conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, by an order dated 06.03.2018 of the Executive Officer of the third respondent-Devasthanam, the appellant/writ petitioner was inflicted with punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Another employee was also inflicted with similar punishment by the said order.

4. Challenging the said order dated 06.03.2018, the appellant/writ petitioner filed the writ petition and he also sought for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion as an Assistant Executive Officer. He claimed that his position in the seniority list was at Sl.No.5.

5. By the order under challenge, the learned single Judge had observed that the Enquiry Officer could not decide whether the bribe was taken or not. The learned single Judge further observed that the authorities did not furnish the report of the Enquiry Officer to the appellant/writ petitioner to invite response from him and that no reasons were assigned as to why the punishment had to be imposed. Accordingly, the learned single Judge set aside the order of punishment and directed the third respondent to serve the enquiry report along with all documents and to invite his comments and thereafter, to dispose of the proceedings by a reasoned order.

6. Mr. Atchutananda Dondeti, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner, submits that by the time the writ petition was disposed of, the period of punishment of stoppage of one increment was already over. It is contended by him that stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is a minor penalty and as the appellant/writ petitioner had suffered the punishment, there cannot be any reason for the authorities to not consider his case for promotion. Learned counsel submits that the learned single Judge did not advert to the aspect regarding the promotion of the appellant/writ petitioner and, as such, the impugned order is vitiated. He placed reliance on a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in A.P. Naidu v. General Manager, South Central Railway, (1983) 1 LLJ 151 AP, and a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood,1968 AIR 1113. Accordingly, he submits that a direction may be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the appellant/writ petitioner for promotion.

7. Ms. P. Rajani, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4, submit that there is no illegality in the order of the learned single Judge and, therefore, no interference is called for with regard to the said order. It is further submitted that as departmental proceedings are pending ag