ORDER:

1. The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-Transport Commissioner, in refusing to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post i.e. Road Transport Officer on erroneous assumption that disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are subsisting as on date, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Road Transport Officer from the date when his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits treating the disciplinary proceedings as elapsed by efflux of time.”

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1989 as Mechanic for GDS Vijayawada and subsequently he was promoted from cadre to cadre and presently he is holding as Motor Vehicles Inspector. During his tenure, the petitioner was never imposed with any penalty much less any proceedings initiated under Rule 20 of CCA and CCS Rules for imposing either minor or major penalty. While he was working at Tetagunta check post at Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District from 04.05.2010 to 28.11.2011, a surprise check was conducted on 17.10.2010 by ACB officials, basing on which, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 13.10.2015 after lapse of a period of four years of the surprise check. It is alleged in the charge memo that the petitioner failed to supervise his subordinates properly and gave scope for collection of illegal gratification while he was on duty. He submitted his explanation on 23.11.2015 to the said charge memo, refuting the charges levelled against him and requested to drop further action. The charges levelled against the petitioner are neither grave nor any pecuniary loss occurred to the State and it revolves around misconduct or dereliction of duty or negligence in duty.

3. While the things stood thus, the petitioner was also issued a charge memo on 02.12.2016 alleging that while he was working in the office of Transport Commissioner at Tetagunta, a surprise check was conducted by ACB officials on 28.11.2011, alleging that money was being collected by the employees by engaging private persons as agents. The said charge memo was issued on 02.12.2016 after a period of five years. The Articles of the said charge reveal that the petitioner, in collusion with other staff at the check post, allowed unauthorized persons to act as agents in violation of Circular Orders and thus, indulged in corrupt practices from 26.11.2011 to 28.11.2011. He submitted his explanation on 29.04.2019 to the said charge memo, refuting the allegations made in the charge memo. Pursuant to the notice issued by DSP, ACB, Rajahmundry, the petitioner submitted his reply on 09.11.2012 requesting to drop further proceedings in the departmental proceedings.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that though he became eligible for promotion to the post of Road Transport Officer under Scheduled Caste quota, his junior was promoted, denying his promotion on the sole ground of alleged incidents of surprise check held on 17.10.2010 and 28.11.2011 respectively. The petitioner, having put in seventeen years of service in the cadre of Motor Vehicles Inspector, is eligible to be considered for promotion to the next cadre of Regional Transport Commissioner under S.C. quota. When his case was not considered for promotion, the petitioner filed O.A.No.7944 of 2013, which was disposed on 12.11.2013 directing the State to consider his application for promotion, but the said order was not implemented. Even though the petitioner made several requests ventilating his grievances, his name was not even mentioned in the ROR roster though he became eligible for promotion in the year 2013. The petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.67