ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer, on the ground of reopening of disciplinary case, vide orders of the Conservator of Forests (the 3rd respondent) dated 29.05.2020 and issuing further direction to the Forest Divisional Officer, Adilabad (the 4th respondent), for conducting fresh enquiry and rejecting the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer, vide orders dated 25.03.2021, without finalizing the articles of charge issued on 25.02.2017, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Chamanlal Goel, (1995) 2 SCC 570 and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as reported in the case of The Government of A.P. vs. A. Rajeswara Reddy, 2010 (4) ALT 374 with a consequential relief to declare that the petitioner is entitled for notional promotion on par with his juniors to the post of Deputy Range Officer.

2. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services I appearing on behalf of the respondents and perused the record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 31.05.2001, which post was converted as Forest Section Officer on 24.10.2008; that next promotion from the post of Forest Section Officer is to the post of Deputy Range Officer; and that for the purpose of granting promotion as Deputy Range Officer, each circle is considered as a unit.

4. Petitioner contends that while he became eligible for being considered to the post of Deputy Range Officer, the 4th respondent had issued a charge memo dated 25.02.2017, containing articles of charge for improper utilization of funds, in violation of Government Order etc.

5. Petitioner further contends that he had submitted his reply dated 28.10.2017 to the said articles of charge, denying the charge and bringing to the notice of the disciplinary authority that the alleged improper utilization of funds related to a period prior to petitioner joining in the section i.e. before 08.12.2015.

6. Petitioner also contends that the 4th respondent being the disciplinary authority on considering the defence statement and by causing discreet enquiry, declared the charge made against the petitioner as not proved and dropped further proceedings, vide-orders dated 24.02.2020.

7. It is further contended that upon dropping of the disciplinary proceedings by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent in purported exercise of power under Rule 18 R/w Rule 40(1)(iv)(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short ‘the Rules’) vide order Rc. No. 531/P&E/2016/MI dated 29.05.2020 reopened the said proceedings, and remitted the matter back to the 4th respondent to make further enquiry and take necessary action; and that in furtherance thereof, the 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 03.06.2020 for conducting further enquiry as per the direction of the 3rd respondent.

8. Petitioner also contends that by the proceedings dated 03.06.2020, the 12th respondent had not only reopened already concluded disciplinary proceedings, but had also kept them pending for an abnormally long period, and showing the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings as a ruse, the respondents are not considering and are in fact denying granting of promotion to the Petitioner to the post of Deputy Range Officer.

9. Petitioner also contends that aggrieved by the non-consideration of his case for promotion by the Respondents on the ground of reopening and pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 4799 of 2021 and this Court by its order dated 01.03.2021, had directed the respondents to consider the Petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of