The court upheld that an employee does not acquire a right to promotion while facing grave disciplinary charges, allowing administrative discretion in such matters.

ORDER :

Pulla Karthik, J.

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…to pass any other order or orders, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus,

a. Declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering and thereby denying promotion to the post of Assistant Estate Officer on the ground of pending disciplinary charges i.e., Memo no.90/B7/VO/2007 dated 15.05.2010, a memo vide no.1879/B7/VO/2017 dated 25.09.2021, memo no.8565/B7/V0/2023 dated 07.01.2025 as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 19.08.2008,

b. And consequentially declare that the Petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered and be promoted to the post of Assistant Estate Officer without prejudice to any charges pending against him in terms of Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and G.O. Ms.No.529 dated 19.08.2008 with consequential benefits incidental thereto,

c. and pass…”

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a Work Inspector in the year 1988 and was subsequently promoted to the posts of Typist and Senior Assistant in the years in 2003 and 2010 respectively. In the year 2012, the respondent authorities ignored the petitioner’s candidature for promotion to the post of Superintendent and instead promoted his juniors. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed O.A. No.5846 of 2013 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by an interim order dated 01.08.2013, directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s candidature for promotion. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 16.08.2013.

(b) Further, in the year 2021, the respondents issued a provisional seniority list in the cadre of Superintendent, wherein the petitioner’s juniors were again placed above him. Despite the objections submitted by the petitioner, a final seniority list was issued on 16.01.2023, reiterating the same position. On the basis of the said seniority list, the juniors of the petitioner were promoted to the post of Assistant Estate Officer. Challenging the said action, the petitioner filed W.P. No.11454 of 2024 before this Court and by an order dated 02.05.2024 this Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation. In compliance, a revised seniority list was issued on 07.06.2024, wherein the petitioner was placed at Sl. No.5. However, the respondents have not considered the petitioner’s candidature for promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinary charges. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Heard Sri R.Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent No.1; and Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Housing Board, for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, according to the respondents, three disciplinary cases are pending against the petitioner, namely: (i) Memo No.90/B7/VO/2009 dated 15.05.2010, (ii) Memo No.1879/B7/VO/2017 dated 25.09.2021 and (iii) Memo No.8565/B7/VO/2023 dated 07.01.2025. However, the petitioner was not involved in the alleged charges and has been falsely implicated. The preliminary enquiry reports in respect of the aforementioned cases do not disclose the petitioner’s name or his involvement in the alleged misconduct. Moreover, the authorities are unduly withholding the petitioner’s promotion on the sole ground that disciplinary charges are pending, even though those charges have remained unresol