A. Ramu @ Ramu Naik v. dispose of the representation dated 01t1112023 made by the

Petition urrder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidarlrit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respohdents, tc forthwith consider the case of the petitione-r for promotion to the post of Sdecial Grade Deputy Collector by duly consider and dispose of the repreJentation ,rf the petitioner dated 01.11 .2023,without'reference to the pendency of thelDepartmental Proceedings pending against him, within the stipulated period, pending disposal of the above writ petition. i I i t Coun5el for the Petitioner: SRI CH.VENKAT RAMAN i i Counbel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES-II I The Court macle the fotlowing: ORDER i i I i 1 ! a i + I iI I i I t i I I I t I i I i i i t t a HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALU NANDA ORDER: Heald Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Servies-Il appearing on behalf of the respondenb.

2. under: '....to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1tt respondent in not consider and dispose of the representation dated 01.11.2023 made by the petitioner with regard to his promotion to the post of special Grade Deputy collector on par with his juniors, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Articles t4, t6, 19 and 2L of the Constitution of India and unconstitutional, keeping in view of the fact that the Departmental Proceedings initiated against the petitioner, vide G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 23.02.202L was stayed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.21754 of 2023, dated 18.08.2023 and consequently direct the respondents, to forthwith consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of special Grade Deputy Collector by duly consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 01.11.2023, : I i : i 2 Si'r-. J wP_31787-2023 urithout reference to the pendency of Departmental Proceedings pending against him, within the stipulated period, and pass such other order...".

3. -l-he case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner worke<J in various capacities during his 28 years of service in Govenrment. Initially the petitioner was appointed as Deputy Tahsilclar Trainee on 31.O7.1995, thereafter the petitioner was posted as Deputy Tahsildar on 06.08.1996 at Pedda Kothapalli Mandal, Mahabubnagar, and subsequently the petitioner got promoted as Tahsildar for Golkonda Mandal, Hyderabad on

20.08.2007 and thereafter in view of G.O.Ms.No.563 dated L7.05.2Ot1the petitioner got promoted as Deputy Collector. It is the specific case of the petitioner that earlier the petitioner filed W.P.No.1045 of 2017 before this Hon'ble Court seekin,J to declare the action of the 1't respondent in failing to 6sisiflr-rr the case of the petitioner for promotion on adhoc basis on an alleged ground that there is a trap case pending against the pe:titioner while considering the case of others who are juniors to the petitioner in service and the Hon'ble Court was pleaserl to dismiss the said writ petition on t7.04.20t7. In the said order dated 17.O4.2O17 oassed in a batch of writ -7 J SN. J wP 3l ?87 2021 writ oetitions includanq W.P.No.1O45 of 2017 it was observed as follows: "Their entitlement for promotion shall be reviewed on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. For any reason, disciplinary proceedings are not conclud-ed, delay not attributable to petitioners, their entitlement for promotion may be considered in accordance with G.O. Ms. No' 257 dated 10.06.1999. Subject to above directions W.P. Nos' 1045 and 2451 of 2OL7 arc dismissed." It is the further the case of the petitioner that in spite of the above said orders of this Hon'ble Court, the Government has not considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Special Grade Deputy Collector and issued the impugned orders in G.O.Rt.No.76 dated 23.C2.2O21 relating to the proceedings pertaining to the enquiry initiated against the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner again filed W.P.No.21754 of 2023, before this Court and this Court was pleased to pass the interim orders dated 18.08'2023 in favour of the petitioner granting interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide the impugned G.O.Rt.No.76 dated 23'O2'202L' Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 01.11.2023 to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's case for promotion, but the respondents have not considered 4 SN. J \\,P 3t787 202i a petitioners request as on date. Aggrieved by the same the - petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD. (A) The rel vant oortion of the order of this Court datecl 17.04.2O17 oassed in W.P.Nos.1O45 of 2017, 43182 of 2016 and batch. is extracted hereunder: "29.2. As seen from the facts in W.p.No.1045 of 2017, the incident relates to the year 2011 and on 29.O9.2Ot4, Government declined the request of ACB to sanction to prosecute the petitioner and instead, decided to entrust the case to the Commissioner of Inquiries. For more than two years. :here is no progress in formulating the charges and the Jisciplinary proceedings are lingering at that stage. On the ,Jround that disciplinary proceedings are pending, his juniors '^/ere promoted in November, 2016. Similarly in W.p.No.2451 of .2017, the incident relates to the year 2014 and the crime was registered on 12.06.2014. On 23.04.2016, Government decided t:o initiate disciplinary action. Thereafter, there is no further [)rogress. Having decided to initiate disciplinary action, there is no justification for the Government to keep silent, not frame the <:harges and conduct enquiry. Thus, in the facts of these two (:ases and by applying the balancing process, !: deem it proper to direct the respondents to conclude the glisciolinarv action as exoeditiousty as oossible, preferablv within a period of six months from the date of geceiot of coov of this order. A time schedule to be drawn commensurate with the procedure incorporated in ApCS (CCA) Flules, 1991. Petitioners shall cooperate for early conclusion of t1e enquiry. If the petitioners do not cooperate. it is open to the i:; t. i: j.i 5 SN, J wP 3t787-2023 disciplinary authorities to conduct ex parte enquiry and conclude the proceedings. "Their entitlement for promotion shall be reviewed on conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. For any reason, disciplinary proceedings are not concluded, delay not attributable to petitioners, their entitlement for promotion may be considered in accordance with G.Ot Ms. No. 257 dated 10.06.1999. Subject to above directions W.P. Nos. 1045 and 245L of 2OL7 are dismissed."

30. Writ Petition Nos.1045, 245L,2688 and 3576 of 2OL7 are dismissed and Writ Petition NOs.43182 of 20L6, 2448,3188 and 5988 of 20 !7 are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the specific direction issued by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.1045 of 2017 and batch directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary action as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, had not been implemented by the respondents herein and the respondents have not concluded the disciplinary action as on date.

6. This Court ooines that promotion is not a fundamental riqht but Riqht to be considerecl for oromotion however is a fundamental riqht. since such a rioht brinqs within its 6 , r; ' -r SN. J wP 3l?87 2021 ourview an effective, ouroosefut and meaninqfut n o n shal e case of he Detitaon er for oromotion. for co nsiderino 7. Division Bench of this Court i.e., High Court of Andhra Pradersh as it then was, in the case of K.Sai Ram y State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2Ot7 SCC Online Hyderabad 549 vide its Judgment dated O7.O9.2O17 held that a ..person cannot be penalized by keeping disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods,, and in the said case the promotion to the petitioner therein was directed to be consiclered, with a clear observataon that same however shall trc subject to outcome of the disciptinary proceedings.

8. Similar view was taken by this Court vide ats Judgment dated 31.07.2018 passed in W.p.No.21306 of 2(,1g. Th x n m 1nI 5 Suo rme Court Cas

570. ated 31 .o1.199 s P e v Lal os. 2and 1 3 obse edasu der: "12. Applying the balancing process, we are of the opinion that the quashing of charges and of the order appointing en'1uiry officer was not warranted in the facts and 7 SN. J \r/P_3 I 787_2023 circumstances of the case. It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and withou! taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediatelv. This direction is made in the particular facts and circumstances of the case though we are aware that the Rules and practice normally followed in such cases may be different. The promotion so made, if any, oending the enquirv shall, however, be subiect .to review after the conclusion of the enquirv and in the lioht of the findinos in the enquiry. It is also directed that the enquiry against the respondent shall be concluded within eight months from today. The respondent shall cooperate in concluding the enquiry. It is obvious that if the respondent does not so cooperate, it shall be open to the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte. If the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aforesaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped.

13. The High Court has relied upon the decision of this noh & Anr. (1990 Court in State of Ma dhva Pradesh v. Bani (Suppl.) S.C.C.738) on the question of delay. That was a case where the charges were seryed and disciplinary enquiry sought to be initiated after a lapse of twelve years from the alleged irregularities. From the report of the judgment, the nature of the charges concerned therein also do not appear. we do not know whether the charges there were grave as in 8 SN. J wP 31787 2023 I .i this case. Probably, they were not. There is another cistinguishing feature in the case before us: by the date of tre judgment of High Court, the major part of the enquiry u/as over. This is also a circumstance going into the scales r,,rhile weighing the factors for and against. As stated hereinabove, wherever delay is put forwa rd as a ground for quashing the charges, the court has to weigh all the factors, both for and against the delinquent officer and come to a c,:nclusion which is just and proper in the circumstances. In the circumstances, the principle of the said decision cannot h elp the respondent".

10. Learn counsel aDDearano the lim n behalf I fa f the e tition er in the o nt writ oeti ion is a di ion to natitin ncr reD eG ri ut ntation dated O1.11.2O23 add ssed to t e l"t nFi iiana frrrth hrr i ha !n reou est of the Detitione r for Dro otion on adhoc ba is to the ost of Deputv Coll or, an accorda nce to law, within a reas onable Deraod.

11. l.earned Assistant Government pleader appearang on behalt of the respondents does not daspute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner. ': I l { 1i i! :l : -7 9 SN, J wP 3t787 2023 L2. Takinq into consideration: (A) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (B) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the tearned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The specific directions issued in favour of the petitioner in w.P.No.1O45 of 2017 and batch dated t7.O4.2Ot7, directing the respondents to conclude the disciplinary action as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order, (D) The fact that the orders passed in W.P.No'1O45 of 2OL7 dated 1-7.O4.2OL7 had not been implemented as on date and disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner had not been concluded even as on date, (E) The contents of the detailed representation of the petitioner dated 01.11.29,23 addressed to the 1"t respondent herein, \ i.: tt r0 SN. J \r/P__1 1787_2023 The Writ Petition is allowed directing the - respo'ndents to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put forth in the representation dated 01.11.2023 addrr:ssed to the 1't respondent herein pertaining to the request of the petitioner for promotion on adhoc basis to the post of Deputy Collector on par with petitioner's junior.s duly taking into consideration the orders passed in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.1O45 of 1Otl filed by the petitioner whereunder the respondents had been directed to conclude the disciplinary action as expeclitiously as possible preferably within a period of six montlrs from the date of receipt of copy of the said order dated 17.O4.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.1O45 of ZAtt and batch with a further stipulation that failing which the petitioner's entitlement for promotion may be considered in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1.ggg, and pass appropriate orders on petitioner's representation dated 01.1L.2O23 duly taking into consideration the obseruations of the Apex court in the judgment referred to anrl extracted above and also the order of the division bench of this Court dated tt.O4.2OL7 passed in w.P.No.1045 of 2oL7 and batch (referred to and extracted 1l SN. J wP_3 r 787_2023 above), in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice and duly communicate the decision on petitioner's representation dated 01.11.2023 seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on par with petitioner's juniors. There shatl be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. SD/. S. MALLIKARJUNA SISTANT REGI /TRUE COPYil SECTION OFFICER To, 'l-

5. The PrinciPal Secretary, Rerre.nue Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telanga The Chief Commissioner of Land Admi nnnrPurn" Hotel, Abids, HYderabad Di One CC to SRI CH.VENKAT RAMAN' Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II' H Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies rtment, Telangana Secretariat, y Station Road, OPP istrict, Telangana Advocate [OPUC] igh Court for the State of Telangana' at w BSR GJP HIG H COIJRT I I TDA ED: 0610812025 ORDER i wPiNo.31787 0t 2023 .,rl t ., ..,/. ; ' ,') . r-.' ,i {} i c.J (.Jt I CC TODAY .+ ro\\.,\. 'i ' ,{pi] 2026 .t r.i t.:. -.v * .,t .., ,r '. AL OWING THE WRIT PETITION, i WITHOUT'COSTS I i t ,PeI 8 frr*t