SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3275

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
D RAMESH
D. Chaitanya – Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P. – Respondent
WP 2411/2026



##PAGE1##

::1:: 2026:APHC:6529

APHC010041382026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3208]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

WRIT PETITION NO: 2411/2026

Between:

1. D . CHAITANYA,, S/O. OMKAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC.

DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (FAC) ITDA,

RAMPACHODAVARAM, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT,

R/O. GOVT., QUARTERS, NEAR PMRC, RAMPACHODAVARAM

ALLURI SEETHA RAMA RAJU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. T HE STATE OF A P, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,

SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522502

2. T HE ENGINEERINCHIEF, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERING

DEPT., REVENUE COLONY, LABBI PETA, VIJAYAWADA,

KRISHNA DISTRICT-522001

...RESPONDENT(S):

##PAGE2##

::2:: 2026:APHC:6529

This Court made the following ORDER:

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India by the Petitioners for the following relief:

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the

action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the

Petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer,

on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide

charge memo in Procgs. No. CB3/167/C. 2483508/Complaint

Inq.Report/2021, dt. 08.11.2024, as illegal, arbitrary,

discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents

to promote the Petitioner to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer,

without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memo

pending against him, from the date of their eligibility, with all

service and monetary benefits and to pass….”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on

18.07.2017. The 2nd Respondent issued a charge memo dated

08.11.2024 alleging procedural irregularities in connection with the

construction of additional infrastructure facilities to the APTW Residential

Junior College for Girls at Busarajupalli Village, Buttaigudem Mandal,

West Godavari District. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on

28.11.2024 denying the allegations and requested dropping of further

action, and also made another representation dated 03.10.2025.

However, the disciplinary proceedings are still pending without

##PAGE3##

::3:: 2026:APHC:6529

finalization. Meanwhile, a tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineers

and Assistant Executive Engineers for the panel years 2016–17 to 2023–

24 was prepared, wherein the petitioner is placed at Sl. No. 2 in the panel

year 2016–17 of AEE’s of Zone–I. The petitioner, though fully eligible and

falling within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy

Executive Engineer, is likely to be excluded from consideration solely on

account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, despite the

existence of several vacancies and initiation of the promotion process by

the respondents. Hence the writ petition.

4. As seen from the material available on record, the charge memo

dated 08.11.2024 is pending against the petitioner; however, the inquiry

has not been completed till date.

5. In Rajeswara Reddy’s case, at para No.6, the Division Bench of

Composite High Court observed as follows:

“…..Since the petitioners did not complete the

departmental proceedings against the respondent

even after lapse of more than one and half years,

the Tribunal has rightly directed consideration of the

case of the respondent for promotion without

reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings,

and no interference is called for with the said order.”

6. Ordinarily, an employee is not considered for promotion when

disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him on serious allegations.

##PAGE4##

::4:: 2026:APHC:6529

However, an employee cannot be denied promotion by keeping the

disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top