Ch Rajitha vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the respondents were dragging the departmental enquiry proceedings without concluding them, which was contrary to the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.91, dated September 12, 2022. This Government Order stipulates time limits for completing inquiries in simple and complicated cases, which were three months and five to six months, respectively. The Court noted that the charge memo was issued on March 14, 2023, and the enquiry was still not concluded. Therefore, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant/AEO, keeping in view Rule 5(b) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, provided she possessed other requisite qualifications as per prevailing rules. The Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Facts

The petitioner, Ch. Rajitha, a Junior Assistant in the State Tax Department, filed a writ petition challenging the delay in concluding a departmental enquiry initiated against her. A charge memo was issued on March 14, 2023, alleging violations of the A.P.C.S. (Conduct) Rules, 1964, related to participation in a 'Dharna' and raising slogans. The petitioner submitted her explanation, and enquiry proceedings were initiated with hearings on November 28, 2023, and February 26, 2024. However, the enquiry remained unconcluded. The petitioner argued that the delay prejudiced her chances for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, a non-selection post, as her name appeared in the seniority list. The respondents stated that the enquiry was adjourned at the request of some charged officers.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' failure to conclude the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, initiated by the charge memo dated March 14, 2023, is illegal and arbitrary, violating the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.679 and G.O.Ms.No.91? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as per the seniority list, notwithstanding the pending charge memo? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the departmental enquiry was unduly delayed, contrary to the stipulated timelines in G.O.Ms.No.91, dated September 12, 2022. This delay was causing prejudice to her promotion prospects. She relied on G.O.Ms.No.679 and G.O.Ms.No.91 for the guidelines on concluding enquiries. Respondents' Contentions: The respondents, represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the enquiry was adjourned due to requests from other charged officers. They did not rely on any specific provisions or precedents.