Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Constitution Of India Seeking The ... vs Unknown on 2 February, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.2010 OF 2021
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate order or directions more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant without reference to the Charge Memos issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.1474, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 04.11.2009 as per G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Senior Assistant without reference to the Charge Memo, vide G.O.Rt.No.1474, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 04.11.2009 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 with all consequential benefits."
2. The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds in the year 1991. Since the date of joining, he is discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the superior officers. He is fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and without any promotion, he is working in the same post as Junior Assistant for the last thirty years. 2
3. On 04.11.2009, a Charge Memo vide G.O.Rt.No.1474 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E1) Department, dated 04.11.2009 (for short 'G.O.Rt.No.1474) was served on the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit his written statement. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his written statement denying the allegations in the Charge memo with a request to drop further proceedings.
4. On 01.01.2008, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008 (for short 'G.O.No.679'), fixed the time limit for finalization of disciplinary proceedings, in simple cases within a period of three months and whereas in complicated cases within a period of six months. But so far, the respondents did not complete the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. However, as per G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, when disciplinary proceedings are pending against the Government employee for more than two years, without reference to the proceedings pending against such employee, the case of such employee can be considered for promotion to the next higher cadre.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri T.S.N.Sudhakar requested to issue a direction to consider the case of the petitioner, without reference to the pending enquiry, adhering to the guidelines issued in G.O.No.257. Whereas the learned Government Pleader for Services-II requested to issue a 3 direction to follow the procedure prescribed under G.O.No.257 or to complete the enquiry as early as possible.
6. It is undoubtedly true that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuing G.O.Rt.No.1474 and called for written statement from the petitioner in compliance of Rule 20 (3) of The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'CCA Rules'). Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his written statement within the specified time. Dissatisfied with the written statement of the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed, ordering regular departmental enquiry by exercising power under Rule 20(6) of CCA Rules and the enquiry is still pending since 04.11.2009. On account of pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner was not promoted to the next higher cadre. Considering the circumstances and consequential damage being caused to the Government servants, the Government issued G.O.No.257. As per G.O.No.257, when the enquiry could not be completed within two years from the date of its initiation, the case of Government servant can be considered for next promotion subject to clause 5 of G.O.No.257. But till date, the case of the petitioner was not considered even invoking G.O.No.257. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next cadre without reference to the pending enquiry, vide G.O.Rt.1474 strictly adhering to G.O.No.257.
In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion 4 to the next cadre, without reference to the pending enquiry, vide G.O.Rt.1474 Municipal Administration & Urban Development (E1) Department, dated 04.11.2009, strictly adhering to G.O.No.257 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 02.02.2021 MP