Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.
A. Srinivasa Rao S/o Ankamma - Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 20611 of 2025
Decided On : 05-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Srinivasa Rao
Promotion applications should not be hindered by non-serious disciplinary charges, aligning with specified governmental guidelines.
Headnote:(A) G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 - Promotion to the Post of Chief Engineer - Writ Petition filed to challenge the non-consideration of promotion due to pending disciplinary enquiry - Charges of inferior quality of work deemed not serious enough to impede promotion. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Delay in appointing Enquiry Officer and concluding enquiry - No significant loss to government alleged, and delay of over 9 years highlighted. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in 1997, has faced an unexplained delay in departmental proceedings and is apprehensive regarding promotion to Chief Engineer due to ongoing disciplinary enquiry.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the Respondents to consider the Petitioner’s case for promotion, emphasizing that the charges framed do not warrant barring his eligibility.
Issues: The main issue was whether the pending disciplinary enquiry justifies the non-consideration for promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the nature of the charges does not disqualify the Petitioner from promotion, affirming the relevance of the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.257.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's promotion case and ongoing disciplinary enquiry. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments against the charges and enquiry delay. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. government's position on enquiry and promotion procedures. (Para 6) |
| 4. court's decision directing consideration for promotion. (Para 7) |
1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering Petitioner’s case for promotion to the Post of Chief Engineer as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion forthwith as per G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Director dated 10.06.1999.
2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1997 and subsequently, he was promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer and is working as such at Tenali Municipality, Guntur District. It is stated that now he is eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer. While so, a Charge Memo was issued to the Petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.134, dated 23.04.2025 alleging that the some inferior quality of works carried under the SDF scheme in the erstwhile SPSR Nellore during the years from 2016 to 2019.
3. It is stated that after till date, no Enquiry Officer has been appointed and there is no progress in the departmental enquiry. While so, the promotion for the post of Chief Engineer are being considered and the apprehension of the Petitioner is that his case would not be considered for promotion in view of the pendency of the disciplinary enquiry. It was in that context, the present Writ Petition was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Charges against the Petitioner are concerned, neither allegation of any loss to the Government nor an explanation as to why there was delay of more than 9 years in issuing the Charge Memo. He further submits that the charge made against the Petitioner is inferior quality of works carried under the SDF scheme and in that context, the delay is inexplicable.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that though charge sheet is filed, till date no Enquiry Officer was appointed and there is no progress in concluding the disciplinary proceedings and the same is likely to hinder his prospects for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would contend that the delay in concluding the departmental enquiry is due to some administration grounds and as regards the issue of promotion, he submitted that his case would be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999.
7. Having heard the respective submissions, this Court is of the opinion that as the charges framed against the Petitioner does not appear to be serious enough and his case can be considered for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, the present Writ Petition is disposed of in the following terms:
(i) The respondents are directed to consider the Petitioner’s case for promotion to the Post of Chief Engineer taking into consideration the nature of charges in the charge memorandum issued vide G.O.Rt.No.134, dated 23.04.2025 being only supervisory failure, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999.
(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
