Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/1640/2026 of SEERAM SIMHACHALAM Vs THE STATE OF AP on 30 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 1640/2026 Between: 1. SEERAM SIMHACHALAM, S/O. APPA RAO (LATE), AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (FAC) TRIBAL WELFARE
APHC010022692026
IN THE H
(
SATURDAY, TH
TWO T
THE HONOU
WRIT
Between:
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.
1. SEERAM SIMHACHA YEARS, OCC DY. EX SUB-DIVISION, PAD QUARTER NO. 2, DISTRICT - 531024
2. CHALLA SHYAM PRA 34 YEARS, OCC ASS PANCHIPENTA MAN R/O. 511, KVR AVE 535591
1. THE STATE OF AP, R WELFARE ENGIN VELAGAPUDI, GUNT
2. THE ENGINEERLNCH REVENUE COLONY DISTRICT.
Petition under Article circumstances stated in th pleased to issue an appro HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT URABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH T PETITION NO: 1640/2026 ALAM, S/O. APPA RAO (LATE), AGED A XECUTIVE ENGINEER (FAC) TRIBAL W ERU. R/O. NEW ITDA STAFF QU PADERU, ALLURI SEETHA RAM ASAD,, S/O. CHALLA SATYAM, AGE ST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRIBAL W DAL, PARVATHIPURAM, MANYAM D ENUE, SRI SAI NAGAR COLONY, S ...PETIT AND REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY NEERING DEPARTMENT, SECR TUR DISTRICT. HIEF, TRIBAL WELFARE ENGINEERIN Y, LABBI PETA, VIJAYAWADA, ...RESPON 226 of the Constitution of India praying e affidavit filed therewith, the High Co opriate writ, order or direction more part
ABOUT 60 WELFARE UARTERS, MA RAJU ED ABOUT WELFARE, DISTRICT. SALURU - TIONER(S) Y, TRIBAL RETARIAT, NG DEPT., KRISHNA NDENT(S): g that in the urt may be icularly 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 vide charge memo in Procgs. No. CB3/167/C. 2483508/Complaint Inq.Report/2021, dt 25.10.2024, 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 benefits and to pass 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 to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Dy. Executive Engineer, without reference to the disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo in Procgs. No.CB3/167/C. 2483508/Complaint Inq.Report/2021, dt: 25.10.2024, pending against them pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II
This Court made the following ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief:
“…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 vide charge memo in Procgs. No. CB3/167/C. 2483508/Complaint Inq.Report/2021, dt 25.10.2024, 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 benefits and to pass….”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The 1st petitioner was appointed as Work Inspector on 07.01.1985 and was subsequently promoted up to the post of Assistant Engineer, and placed in full additional charge as Deputy Executive Engineer on 31.01.2021. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer on 17.07.2017 in the Tribal Engineering Department.
4. The 2nd respondent issued suspension orders dated 19.08.2024 alleging irregularities in construction works relating to Government RITI, Bhadragiri (V), GL Puram (M), Vizianagaram District, and a charge memo dated 25.10.2024 was issued framing charges against both petitioners. They submitted explanations on 06.11.2024 denying the allegations and were reinstated on 06.02.2025. However, the disciplinary proceedings are still pending without appointment of an Enquiry Officer or finalization.
5. Meanwhile, the final seniority list for the panel years 2013-14 to 2023-24 was issued, wherein the 1st Petitioner is placed at Sl. No. 14 in the AE list of Zone-I and the 2nd Petitioner at Sl. No. 2 in the AEE list. Though fully eligible and within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, they are likely to be denied promotion solely due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, despite availability of vacancies and initiation of the promotion process. Hence, the writ petition.
6. As seen from the material available on record, the charge memo dated 25.10.2024 is pending against the petitioners. However, the inquiry has not been completed till date.
7. In Government of Andhra Pradesh & Another v. A. Rajeswara Reddy, Deputy Collector, Hyderabad : 2010 (4) ALT 374 (DB), the Division Bench of Composite High Court held in para No.6 as under: “…..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.”
8. Ordinarily, an employee is not considered for promotion when disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him on serious allegations. However, an employee cannot be denied promotion by keeping the disciplinary proceedings pending for unduly long periods. 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, prescribing timelines for conclusion of disciplinary enquiries. In the present case, the respondent authorities have failed to adhere to the timelines fixed under the said Government Orders. For the lapse on the part of the disciplinary authority, the petitioners cannot be penalized.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both sides, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion, if they are within the zone of consideration, without reference to the charge memo dated 25.10.2024. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 31.01.2026 DSV
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 1640/2026
Dated: 31.01.2026
DSV