Disciplinary proceedings against a government employee should be completed within a specific timeframe, and any delay in conducting such proceedings may be considered illegal and arbitrary.

JUDGMENT

Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

'.....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in denying the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Director Industries and Commerce (I & C) Department, in the ensuing counseling consequent on setting aside the punishment orders issued in G.O. Rt. No. 233 Industries & Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 01.12.2020, by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 15043 of 2021, dated 09.08.2021 in the absence of pendency of any punishment orders/disciplinary proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Director in the ensuing DPC conducting pursuant to U.O Note dated 21.11.2021 without reference to the further action in relation to the set-aside punishment orders dated 01.12.2020 and pass such other orders.'

2. Heard Mr. Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the Services-I for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was joined as Industrial Promotional Officer on 05.01.1989 in Director Industries and Commerce, (DIC) Department at Kurnool. Subsequently he got promotions and at present he is working as General Manager, GM (FAC) District Industries Centre, Guntur. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Director at Nellore for the incident relates to the year 2003, the 2nd respondent issued a Charge Memo dated 24.09.2007 and framed charges alleging that he committed irregularity by diverting the coal to black market and violated the provisions under Rule-3 of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1991. The petitioner submitted explanation on 12.10.2007 and detailed enquiry was conducted. As against the enquiry report, the petitioner submitted explanation on 30.12.2013 requested the 2nd respondent to drop further action. Subsequently no progress in the matter and hence the petitioner made representations dated 24.08.2017 and 13.05.2019, but no action taken by the respondents. In the meanwhile, the 1st respondent issued impugned order dated 21.11.2021 to convene the Screening Committee Meeting to consider the names of the Deputy Directors of Industries for promotion to the post of Joint Directors of Industries during the panel year 2021-2022, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ petition came to be filed.

4. Per contra, the 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and mainly contended that this Court by its order dated 09.08.2021 set aside the G.O. Rt. No. 233, dated 01.12.2020 issued by the 1st respondent and the matter is remanded to State Government for fresh consideration of the issue after taking into account the explanation offered by the petitioner on 30.12.2013 and afford opportunity to submit any additional explanation. The Charge Sheet pending against the petitioner is not dropped. As the punishment is set aside, the Departmental Promotion Committee appointed by Government can decide promotion if eligible in terms of Para 5 (B)(i) of G.O. Ms. No. 257 and made recommendations. Further contended that the office looking after vigilance matters in the office are changed several times, because of administrative grounds and as the records are voluminous in nature, thorough examination is required to offer remarks to the 1st respondent with the facts of the case, however said file is under process to submit the remarks to the 1st respondent. The respondent submitted DPC proposal to Government dated 12.09.2021, which is competent authority to take decision on the promotion of the individual like petitioner. Therefore, requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the