Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/5078/2026 of Yamala Srikanth Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 5078/2026 Between: 1. YAMALA SRIKANTH, S/O. Y. PRABHAKAR RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 32
APHC010089012026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 5078/2026
Between:
1. YAMALA SRIKANTH, S/O. Y. PRABHAKAR RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, O/O ENC TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT
VIJAYAWADA, R/O B-2 APARTMENT, MURALI NAGAR, 2ND
CROSS
ROAD,
RAMACHANDRANAGAR,
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS
PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
TRIBAL
WELFARE
ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237
2. THE
ENGINEERINCHIEF,
TRIBAL
WELFARE
DEPARTMENT,
REVENUE
COLONY,
LABBIPETA,
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 520001
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer, on the ground of pendency of disciplinary
proceedings No.AC-4-TWED-STP-P.Patnam-NREGS-2025, dated 01.07.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioners to the post of Dy.
Executive Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings / charge memo pending, against them, from the date of their eligibility, with all service and monetary benefit IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 pleased to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo in proceedings No.AC-4-TWED- STP-P.Patnam-NREGS-2025, dated 01.07.2025, pending against them Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SANAKA MANASWI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer, on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings dated 01.07.2025, as illegal arbitrary and pass such other order or orders.…”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the Tribal Welfare Department on 19.07.2017 and while working so, the 2nd respondent herein issued suspension orders to the petitioner on 01.07.2025 framing certain charges against the petitioner stating that the petitioner has committed irregularities in execution of five road works under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. Petitioner submitted explanation on 12.01.2026 refuting the same and the proceedings are pending. As of now, no Enquiry Officer has been appointed. Petitioner is eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer. Respondents stated to have commenced the process of undertaking promotion to the aforesaid post for the panel year 2013- 14 to 2024-24 and the petitioner apprehend that in view of the aforesaid disciplinary proceedings, his name would not be considered within zone of consideration.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on instructions, would submit that the case of the petitioner would be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999.
5. As seen from the material available on record, a charge memo vide G.O.Rt.No.194 dated 18.07.2022 is pending against the petitioner. However, the inquiry is not completed so far.
6. In Rajeswara Reddy’s case, at para No.6, the Division Bench of Composite High Court observed as follows: “…..Since the petitioners did not complete the departmental proceedings against the respondent even after lapse of more than one and half years, the Tribunal has rightly directed consideration of the case of the respondent for promotion without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings, and no interference is called for with the said order.”
7. Ordinarily, an employee will not be considered for promotion if disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him based on serious allegations. However, an employee cannot be denied promotion by keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods.
8. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679 General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, and thereafter G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022, fixing timelines to conclude the inquiry. In the case at hand, the respondent authorities flouted the timelines fixed in the G.Os. For the fault on the part of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner shall not be penalized. If any excess amounts are paid, the respondents authorities are entitled to recovery the same from the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondents have recovered the same from the petitioner.
9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, if the petitioner is in the zone of consideration, without reference to the aforementioned charge memo. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH Date:23.02.2026 Gk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 5078/2026
Date:23.02.2026 Gk.