WP/24409/2020 of M.Vani Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others on 31 December 2020

ORDER

This Vrit Petition is hled seeking the following relief:

"to [issue ][a ][rWrit ][order or ][direction ][more ][particularly ][one ][in]the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action ofrespondents in issuing Article of Charge inRc.No.5874/2017lM1(i) dated 04/05/2078 under Rule 20 ofA.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)Rules, 1991 pertaining to the allegations for the yeat 2009-2010 for the abnormal delay caused in framing Article ofCharges for alleged minor issue of 1/2 acre (0.21 hectares)area of short fall without anv proper evidence contrary tothe number of plants shown as 5,555 which comes in anarea of 5 hectares as arbihary, illegal and set aside the sameand pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Courtmay deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Heard Sri G.Raman Goud, learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Forestappearing for the respondents.

It is the case of the petitioner that she is working [as]Depury Range Officer, and that though she is eligible [for]promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer, therespondents are not considering [her ][case ][on ][the premise ][thzlt]Article of Charge vide [Rc.No.5874/2017 ]/M1,(1), [datcd]04.05.2018 is pending against her.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner [contends]that the State Government has taken [a ][policy ][decision ][in]

terms of G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration (Services.C)Department, dated 30-01-1991, wherein it was directed that inrespect of the employees who are facing disciplinaryproceedings and whose cases fall under the group referred inpara 2 (iii) of the said GO, the promotion/appointment bytransfer to the nexr higher post shall be deferred only when acharge of misconduct was framed by the competent authorityand served on the delinquent officer concerned or a chargesheet has been filed against him in a criminal Court as thecase may be. Learned counsel further contends that the StateGovernment has taken a policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.257,dated 10.06.99, wherein it was directed to consider the case ofthe employees against whom disciplinary proceedings arepending in accordance with the guidelines framed thereunder.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondentscontends that case of the petitioner would be considered interms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 and thatappropriate orders would be passed.

Having considered the rival submissions made by thelearned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view thatends of fustice would be met if a direction is given to therespondents to consider the case of the petitioner forpromotion to the post of Forest Range Officer.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner forpromotion to the post of Forest Range Ofhcer strictly in termsof G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 and also G.O.Ms.No.66,dated 30.01.1991 and pass appropriate orders within a period offour weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Nocosts.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any shall stzrndclosed.

SD/[.B.SATYAVATHI]ASSISTANT REGI,TRUE COPYi/SECTION OFFICER

HIGH COURT

DATED: 31t12t2OZO

{HE [S]TAoL'I IJIt,2021zt)*(,"OORDER

WP.No.24409 o12020

Conclusion

DISPOSING OF THE [WRIT ][PETITION]

WITHOUT COSTS

ssV.\\ [c--opre4])nH)tr [ot ]\o\