The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direc,tion more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 4th Respondent in not promoting the petitioner to the category of Forest Section Officer during the panel year 2O15-20'16 on or after 26-12-2015, subsequent to the expiry of currency/effect of punishment owing to modified orders issued in Proc. No. 216912011/52/53 dated 05-10-2015 in lieu of orders made in Proceedings No. 27 40(ill2011ls6 dated 26-12-2013 issr.+ed at the first instance is in violation to Government in Cir. Memo No. 34633/Ser.C/99, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dated 04-'1 1- 1999 and the sub-rule (b) of F.R. 29-A, is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to rules, against the principles of natural justice. Consequently direc the respondents to promote the petitioner to the category of Forest Section OF cer with effect from 06-01-2016 i.e. the date on which date his juniors Sri P. Sri ivas Rao and Sri K. Narayan Rao were promoted vide S.O. No. 1120'16/52 anri S.O. No. 2/2016/52 by reviewing his eligibility during the panel year 2O15-1e with consequential benefits lA. NO: I OF 2017WPMP. NO: 39316 OF 2017) Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the r ircumstances staled in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High : )urt may be pleased to pass interim orders directing the 4th respondent to pro r ote the Petitioner to the category of Forest Section Officer during the parrr I year 2016-17 by reviewing the promotion orders issued in S.O. No. 07120171;2 dated 26-08-2017 (Rc. No. 181012017152), in pursuance to Governmr: rt Cir. Memo No. 34633/Ser.C/99, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dated 04-11-1999 arr lthe sub-rule (b) of F.R. 29-A Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. SHARATH CHANDRA RE DDY REP SRI. ARVIND KUMAR KATI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPURAJESIIWARRAO WRIT PETTTION No.31570 oF 2017 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 4ft respondent in not promoting the petitioner to the category of Forest Section officer during the panel year 2ols-20r6 on or after 26.12.2015, subsequent to the expiry of currency/effect of punishment owing to modified orders issued in proc. No. 2r69r20fi /s2ls3 dated 05.10.2015. subsequent to the expiry of currency/effect of punishment owing to modified orders issued in proc. No.2r69r20rrls2ls3 dated 05.10.20r5 in lieu of orders made in Proceedings No.274o(i\20r l/s6 dated 26.12.2013 issued at the first instance is in violation to Government in cir. Memo No. 34633/Ser.C/99, G.A. (Ser.C) Dept., dated M_ll_lgg9 and the sub_ rule (b) of F.R. 29-A. as arbirrary.

2. Heard Sri N. Sharath Chandra Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Arvind Kumar Kata, reamed counsel for the petitioner and learned Govemment Pleader lor Services-I, appearing for the respondents, and perused the material available on recond.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as a Forest Beat Oftlcer (FBO), under the control of the 6'h respoMent and the petitioner had leen expecting promotion to the ; i i 2 category of Forest Section Officer (FSO) during the par el year 2016-17 based on his seniority and eligibility in the cate6,< ry of FBO as on 01.01.2016 in the unit of Nalgonda Division.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further ; rbmits that the petitioner had completed more than 27 years of sen'i:: and as per the "seniority list of FBOs of Nalgonda Unit as on 01.01.2015 and

01.01.2016', the petitioner stood at serial No. I in both I e lists.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submi s that, earlier to the panel year 2073, the petitioner had not been promo'r d to the category of FSO, owing to the pending of disciplinary case init ated against him vide Article of Charge (AOC) in Ref . N: 2740/56120ll dated29-07-201 l. Subsequently, the disciplinary case I as been disposed of by the disciplinary authority vide Ref. No 2740(i)l20ll/56 dated 26.12.2013 by imposing punishment o[ "stoppr qe of one annual grade increment with cumulative el[ect". Aggrit , ed by the said proceedings, the petitioner submitted an appeal petitio r dated 23.05.2014 to the 3d respondent (appellate authority) and the 3"r espondent issued proceedings in Rc.No. I 406 120 I 4 M3, dated I 0. I 0. 20 I, t by remitting back the case to the disciplinary authority, by setting asil: the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. \ 6 3

6. Learned counsel for the potitioner further submits that after remitting back the disciplinary case to the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority had now issued proceedings, dated 05-10.2015 imposing the punishment of "stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect". 7 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Circular Memo No.34633/Ser.C/99, Genl-Admn.(Ser.C) Departrnent' dated

04.11.1999, wherein it is stated as follows: 'there thc penalty of stopPege of increments with or withort cumulative elTect is imposed, under Rule 9 of tbe Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, l99l' the incrtment falling due immediately after the date of issue of the order or incr€ments should be withheld. It is also clarifi€d that tbe employee whose increments were withheld shall not be recommended for promotion during the period for which the increments were orderrcd to be withheld with effect from tbe date of issuc o[the order imposing the pendty''

8. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further submits that in that view of the Govemment orders, it should be construed that the punishment of "stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect" in Proceedings dated 05. 10.20 I 5 is in lieu of punishment imposed in proceedings dated 26.12.2011 and the petitioner's increment which falls due immediately on or after January, 2014, strall be withheld, and the effect to debar the petirioner from promotion shall be for two yeas from 26.12.2013 to 25.12.2015. Therefore, the effect/currency of the punishment shall be effective from 26.12-2013 on which date originally i I 4 the punishment has becn imposed on the petitioner a- -he first instance, for the purpose of promotion, in view of the fact tt.r t the punishment imposed in Proceedings dated 05.10.2015 is modified a rd shall be in lieu of punishment imposed in Proceedings datd26.12.20

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that i s per sub-rule (b) of F.R.29-A, the petitioner is entitled for promotion r the category of FSO immediately after expiry of the currency/effect <, punishment from the date of imposing the punishment at the first instarr c i.e. 26.12.2013. F.R. 29-A reads as follows: "F.R 29-A Wherc ao order of penalty ofwithholding of increment (rl r (;overnmetra servant or his rcduction to a lower service, grade or port or ao a lower time scale, or to a lower stege in a time scale, is set asidc t " modified by a comp€tcnt authority on appeel or rcview, the pay of th, (;or.ernment servrnt shru, notwithstanding enything cootained to rl esc rules, bc nryuhted in the following matner: (a) If the said ordcr is set aside, he shall be given, for rl : pr:riod such rhe p:r' to rvhich hc order has been in forrco, the dilference b€tweetr would have been entitled hsd that ord€r not beetr made a rd the pay hc had ectuelly drawn; (b) If the said ordcr is modified, the pay shall bc reg I rted as if the order rs so modified had been made in the first instrncr.'

10. Per Contra, leaned Government Pleader for ! :rvices-l has filed counter affidavit and submitted that the currency of th punishment starts from the Date of issue of orders. In this case, the App .llate Authority i.e, Conservator of Forests, Hyderabad circle, vidc proceedings Rc. a 5 No.14061201411vf3 dt: 10.10.2014 has passed an order by seniqg a side of the orders of the Divisional Forest Offrcer, Nalgonda proc. No.274o(i)l20ll/S6dt:26.12.2013 and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority, with instructions to reexamine the case by obtaining further statement of defense lrom the charged officer and to pass a fresh final orders and to dispose of the case on basis ofthe merits. Hence, there is no commencement of the currency of the punishment and the orders issued by Disciplinary Authority becomes Null-&_Void on receipt of the orders of conservator of Foresrs, Hyderabad circle and at the request of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority has conducted fresh enquiry and communicated the findings. The Charged Officer again submitted the Defense Statement on the finding. From the above, it is submitted that the charged officer i.e, petitioner participated with his willingness in the disciplinary procedure.

11. Having regard to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel \ for the respective parties, this court is ol the considered opinion that the F.R.29-A is applicable when an Appellate Authority by reconsideringthe case, issues a final order either by imposing a penatty with or without cumulative effect, the time period for the penalty begins from the date of the original penalty. Here, in the case ot'hand, the Appellate Authority simply set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and remifted the ( t 6 (\ matter to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consider Ltion. When the Order of the Disciplinary Authority is set aside t,. the Appellate Authority and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Ar thority directing the Disciplinary Authority for issuance of show carr: e notice to the petitioner duly communicating the records of the inquir y and called for his further wriften defence statement mentioning that, rv ry he should not be punished for the charges held proved against him. lr that view of the matter, the Order of the Disciplinary Authority, ,l Lted 26. I 2.2013 becomes null und void. Accordrngly, the order, dated I ). I 0.201 5 issued by the Disciplinary Authority, with stoppage of (02) tv o Annual Grade Increments without cumulative effect, will end in 201 7 only and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No or der as to cosrs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pendin; . il any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. :iD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI SS ISTANT REGISTRAR ,,TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. ARVIND KUMAR KATA, Advocate [Cf UCI 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for tlie I tat6 of Tetangana at 3. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] BM PSK HIGH COURT DATED:18l,0812025 ORDER WP.No.31570 ot 2017 i rES 14 ( j 0 IlAB 7ns 2 a * Sr qTCFlt? a ===)/ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETTTION WITI{OUT COSTS t, ^I