Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18568

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J
P V L Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. No. 24020 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C Srinivasa Baba
For the Respondents: GP for Services I

Administrative orders deferring promotions must record reasons; a department cannot penalize an employee by withholding promotion due to its own failure to complete a pending disciplinary inquiry within a court-stipulated time.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, and 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Promotion of employee facing disciplinary proceedings - G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 - Requirement of reasoned orders for administrative decisions - Principle of natural justice - Principle that employee cannot be penalized for the fault of the Government.

(B) Administrative Law - Reasoned Orders - It is settled law that every administrative or quasi-judicial order must contain reasons. Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. In the absence of reasons, a judicial authority faces difficulty in testing the correctness of the order or exercising its power of judicial review. (Para 9)

(C) Service Law - Promotion - Pendency of Disciplinary Proceedings - Where a court directs consideration for promotion and completion of an inquiry within a stipulated period, both directions run concurrently. For the fault of the Government, the employee cannot be penalized in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1996) 8 SCC 637. (Paras 13 and 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Director, was trapped by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in 2011 on allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe. He was placed under suspension, reinstated, and a criminal case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Simultaneously, departmental proceedings were initiated for non-submission of APRs and non-intimation of property purchase. The petitioner filed two earlier writ petitions (W.P.No.18959 of 2024 and W.P.No.17117 of 2025) which were disposed of with directions to consider his case for promotion and to conclude the disciplinary inquiry within a specified period. When the respondents included the petitioner's name in a promotion panel but deferred his case citing the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to comply with both limbs of the earlier orders: consideration for promotion and completion of the inquiry. The order deferring the petitioner's promotion contained no reasons. The court held that the petitioner's case must be considered for promotion dehors the pending departmental inquiry, and the department is not precluded from concluding the inquiry and taking appropriate action thereafter.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents could defer the petitioner's promotion based on pending disciplinary proceedings without assigning reasons and without complying with the court's earlier direction to complete the inquiry within a stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative orders must contain reasons. Where a court directs both consideration for promotion and completion of an inquiry within a stipulated period, the State must comply with both. An employee cannot be penalized for the Government's failure to complete the inquiry in time.

Result: Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Director dehors the pending departmental inquiry, without prejudice to the Department's right to conclude the inquiry and take appropriate action. No order as to costs.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer:

“may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to direct the respondents to immediately promote the petitioner as Joint Director since the respondent authorities have included the petitioner in the panel according to impugned G.O.Ms.113 Health Medical and Family Welfare B2 Department dated 22 08 2025 and deferred the claim of the petitioner only because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings which is per se contemptuous and further declare the action of the respondent authorities as illegal arbitrary and contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice and pass orders”.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. As seen from the affidavit, the petitioner appears to have been trapped by the ACB on 05.02.2011, while working in the O/o RDMBHS, Hyderabad on the allegation of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.40,000/-. He was placed under suspension vide G.O.Rt.No.366, HM&FW (VC.1) Dept., dated 18.02.2011 and was reinstated into service on 30.11.2013 and thereafter, a case was registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Crime No.3/ACB-CIU- HYD/2011 under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 34 IPC. Thereupon, the charge sheet is filed on 10.07.2014 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

4. Simultaneously, the Departmental Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.623, HM&FW (VC.1) Dept., dated 24.05.2014 for non-submission of APRs and non-intimation prior to purchase of property. Thereafter, after the State bifurcation, his service was allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Government decided to proceed with the inquiry and appointed Inquiry Officer vide G.O.Rt.No.630, HM&FW(VC.1) Dept., dated 22.09.2025 to conduct inquiry against the petitioner, who was the formerly Deputy Director (Admn.,) O/o RDM&HS, Zone-VI, Hyderabad.

5. The arguments advanced by the petitioner is that, this is the third round of litigation knocking the doors of this Court for consideration of his case for promotion. Initially W.P.No.18959 of 2024 was filed wherein, this Court after examining the contour of facts disposed of the writ petition. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows:

“6. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, if the petitioner is in the zone of consideration and fulfills all requisite qualifications. The respondent authorities shall also conclude the inquiry within six months in accordance with Rules”.

6. When the case was not considered, despite the orders of this Court, he again filed W.P.No.17117 of 2025 and this Court on 10.07.2025 disposed of the writ petition, reiterating the same order passed in the earlier writ petition by slightly modifying the period by which time, the Departmental proceedings should be completed i.e., six (6) months to three (3) months. But the direction, directing the respondents to consider the case for promotion is not altered or dispensed with.

7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has drawn the attention of this Court to the counter affidavit by reading the G.O.Ms.No.257 wherein the instructions were drafted by the State regarding promotions and transfer to the higher category of employees who are facing disciplinary cases. There is no dispute regarding the said G.O., since this Court has already passed orders in the earlier two writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18568

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHTuhin Kumar Gedela, JP V L Suresh Kumar – AppellantVersusState of Andhra Pradesh – RespondentW.P. No. 24020 of 2025

Administrative orders deferring promotions must record reasons; a department cannot penalize an employee by withholding promotion due to its own failure to complete a pending disciplinary inquiry within a court-stipulated time.

Cases Referred (5)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Tuhin Kumar Gedela, J
P V L Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. No. 24020 of 2025