The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction 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 Deputy Collector on the ground of pendency of Charge Memo., vide CCLAs Procas.No. VS.l(3)/19012014, daled 21-8-2618 issued by the 2nd respondent (the incident relates to 2009-.12) as being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the orders. passed by this Honble Court in W.P.No, 7753 of 2024 and conlrary to the Supreme Court Judgment reported in (2O1O) 4 ALT 394 and 1995 (2) SCC 570 and consequently set- aside the impugned Charge Memo CCLAs Procgs.No. VS.l(3)/19012014, daled 21-8-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent on the ground of delay and latches in concluding the departmental proceedings within the stipulated period of 3/6 months in terms of the Government instructions in the matter and declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector in her turn with . all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector in the existing vacancies, without re''erence to pendency of Charge memo. Vide CCLAs Procgs No. VS.l(3)/190/2014, dated 21-8-2018 issued by the 2nd respondent, keeping in view the orders passed by this Honble Court in W.P.No. 7753 of 2024, dated 1-4-2024, pending lisposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P NARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondents No 1 AND 2: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION 0.33658 0F 2025 ORDER With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on the ground of pendency of Charge Memo vide CCLA's ProcAs.No.VS.I(3)/l9O/20L4, dated 21.08.2018, issued by respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Heard Mr. P. Narasimha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

4. The brief facts oF the case are that: (a) the petitioner was initially appointed as Deputy Tahsildar in March 2005 pursuant to Notification No.10/99 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Tahsildar in March 2009, serving in that capacity diligently and without any complaints. During her tenure, she has successfully cleared all requisite departmental tests and is fully eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector. At the relevant time, the petitioner was in the zone of consideration For promotion when she came .i 1 to know that her case might not be considered on a,:count of pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against her ( b) The 2n'r respondent issued a charge meno vide CCLA's Procgs. No.VS.I(3)/19O/2O14, dated 21.08.2018, frarning two charges against the petitioner. The first charge alleges that the petitioner allotted Khata No.865 of Aswapuram Revenue Village to two non-tribals, purportedly in violation of the ROR Act. The second charge alleges that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in orders passed between tg.O7.2OOg and 31.12.201,2. The petitioner has contenJt:d that in respect of Charge No.1 it was merely a clerical mistake, arrd there was no malafide or dishonest intention. In respect of Charge N'1.2, she contended that it was executed strictly in accordance with dire:tions from higher authorities, including the Hon'ble High Court, the Spt:cial Grade Deputy Collector, and under the provisions of the Land Transferr Regulation Act. Despite the issuance of the charge memo over seven years ago, no progress has been made in the disciplinary proceedingls/ as no Enquiry Officer has been appointed to conduct the enquiry. The delay and inaction on the part of the respondents have resulted in undue harassment to the petitioner. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thrt. the pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot legally prevent the p€ trtioner from being considered for promotion if she is otherwise fit, as t-eld by the Hon'ble J Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman (AIR 1991 SC 2Ol0), State of Punjab vs. Chaman Lal Goyal (L995 Z SCC 570), and New Bank of India vs. N.P. Sehgat (1991 2 SLR 59 SC). Further, the Government, by issuing instructions under Circular Memo No.35676/Ser.C/98-7, dated 01.07.1998 and Memo No.82494/Ser.C/ 2003, dated 28.O7.2003, mandated the completion of disciplinary proceedings within a period of three months in a simple matter and six months in a complicated matter from the date of issuance of the charge memo, which has not been followed In the present case. \

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pendency of the charge memo, the petitioner's promotion to the post of Deputy Collector has been stalled. He further submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the \ petitioner's case for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, GAD, dated I

10.06.1999.

7. The Learned Government Pleader for Services-I did not dispute the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, GAD, dated 10.06.1999, as and when the vacancies arise, and pass 4 appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditlously as possible' preferablyWithinaperiodoFeight(8)weeksfromtheciateofreceiptofa copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Se,cretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, State cl Telangana, Hyderabad

3. One CC to SRl. P NARASIMHA Advocate TOPUCI 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for the litate of Telangana

5. Two CD Copies l D.N PMK HIGH COURT DATED:0711112025 ORDER WP.No.33658 of 2025 .::=:\- (,ri SlAft <) t' 1B r\ti 21fr c J c !) t DISPOSED OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS { \