Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 810
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.
G Sanjeeva Rayudu, S/o Sanjeevappa - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14499 Of 2025
Decided On : 19-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sarmac VS S
For the Respondent: .GP For Services II
Timely completion of disciplinary inquiries is essential for safeguarding the career advancement rights of government employees.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer - Delay in disciplinary proceedings should not hinder promotion; G.O.Ms.No.679 and G.O.Ms.No.91 set timelines for completing inquiries - In light of the protracted delay, the petitioner's rights must be acknowledged. (Paras 3, 9, 10 and 11)
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The undue delay in inquiries adversely affects an employee's career, necessitating timely completion of such proceedings. (Paras 6 and 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Executive Engineer, sought promotion to Superintending Engineer, but faced delays due to pending disciplinary inquiries initiated in 2024 for irregularities dating back to 2016-2018.
Findings of Court:
The court found that disciplinary proceedings must not affect career advancement, emphasizing the need to expedite inquiries per government directives.
Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner could be considered for promotion despite ongoing disciplinary inquiries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the undue delay in disciplinary proceedings justified promoting the petitioner without prejudice to inquiries, as per precedent cases.
Result: Writ Petition allowed, directing promotion consideration without reference to charge memos.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for promotion affected by disciplinary proceedings. (Para 3) |
| 2. delay in disciplinary proceedings affects promotion eligibility. (Para 4) |
| 3. judicial emphasis on timely completion of inquiries. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. promotion cannot be denied due to unresolved disciplinary proceedings. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court orders consideration for promotion regardless of pending charges. (Para 11 , 12) |
The Court made the following order:
CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-
“...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the existing vacancy on mere pendency of Article of Charges in G.O.Rt.No.286 TR & B Department, 17-09-2024, and Charge Memo in G.O.Rt.No.337 TR & B Department, Dated 06-11-2024 for the work executed in the year 2016-2017 the initiation of disciplinary proceedings only to defer the legitimate promotion of the petitioner which is highly illegal, erroneous and vidictive in nature apart from contrary to the existing Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.679 GAD dated 1-11-2008 and G.O.Ms.No.91, GAD Dated 12-9-2022, and also causing much prejudice to the petitioner now, consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer in the existing vacancy without reference to the pending Charge Memos 17-09-2024 & 06-11-2024 issued by the 1st respondent, by kindly extend the similar orders passed in W.P.No.8195 of 2025, dated 01-04-2025 and 2010 (4) ALT 374 (D.B) and pass such other order or orders....”
2. Heard Sri Sarma C.V.S.S, learned counsel for the petitioner learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll for respondents.
3. Petitioner is working as Executive Engineer. He was issued charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.286, Transport Roads & Buildings (VIG,R&B) Department, dated 17.09.2024, alleging that he W.PNo.14499 of 2025 committed irregularities in execution of the works of improvements to R.Yerraguntapalli to Sangameswaramu (via) Thippepalli road in Ananthapuramu District, which was relating to the period of 2018. Petitioner submitted explanation refuting the allegations made therein and inquiry is stated to be pending. Likewise, petitioner was also issued another charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.337, Transport Roads & Buildings (ViG.R&B) Department, dated 06.11.2024, alleging that he committed irregularities in execution of road widening and strengthening works in Ananthapuramu District, which also relates to the period of 2017-18. Petitioner also seems to have submitted explanation refuting aforesaid allegations and inquiry IS stated to be pending. Petitioner is due for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer and is under zone of consideration, because of pendency of present disciplinary proceedings, his case IS not being considered for promotion.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8195 of 2025 dated 01.04.2025, urged to pass similar order by directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion without reference to the aforesaid memo. There is an inordinate delay in issuing charge memo, relating to the incidents occurred in the year 2017-2018, and so far, inquiry has not been concluded.
5, Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of pendency of these two departmental proceedings, case of petitioner is not being considered for the purpose of promotion. Besides, pendency of departmental proceedings and undue delay is causing immense hardship. It is also submitted that in view of Government circular Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98, dated 01.07.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.679, General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 01.11.2008, fixing timelines for early completi
