APHC010580382025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3208]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 29829/2025 Between:

1. G VENKATESU, S/O TIRUMALADASU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, HINDUPUR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, A.P ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. PRINCIPAL SECRETORY REVENUE (SER. I) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR.

2. T HE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION CCLA, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL.

4. T HE SPECIAL COLLECTOR L A KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.29829 of 2025

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in initiating the disciplinary proceedings based on the press report and not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector though he is fully qualified and eligible for promotion to the said post, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that initially the respondents have initiated departmental proceedings against him. Based on the allegations reported in a news item published in Eenadu Telugu daily news paper on 20.08.2023, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Special Collector, L.A., Srisailam Project, Kurnool and submitted its report on 21.08.2025. As per the report, the allegations were disproved and it was held that though the allegations levelled against the petitioner were disproved, only certain procedural lapses were identified. But surprisingly, contrary to the said enquiry report, the District Collector, Kurnool has recommended to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration vide letter dated 09.09.2025 for initiation of disciplinary proceedings by drawing up articles of charges against the petitioner. Consequently, the 2^nd respondent, vide proceedings, dated 29.09.2025, has initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by framing two charges.

4. While the enquiry with regard to the allegations published in the news paper was pending, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22939 of 2025 seeking consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector as per G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991. As per para 5 of the said G.O., promotion should be deferred only when charges of misconduct are framed by the competent authority and served on the concerned delinquent officer or a charge sheet has been filed against him in criminal court. In the instant case, at the relevant point of time, no charges were framed against the petitioner. Hence, he filed the said writ petition seeking consideration of his case under G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991. The said writ petition was considered and disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the said G.O. However, surprisingly, after disposal of the said writ petition, the respondents have served the articles of charges on the petitioner vide proceedings dated 29.09.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.28462 of 2025 with a request to consider his case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999. The said writ petition was considered and disposed of on 15.10.2025 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. Though the said orders were passed on 15.10.2025, without considering the case of the petitioner, the respondents ha