Armugam Venkata Muni vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, with the consent of both learned counsel. It directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Goods and Services Tax Officer (GSTO) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, as and when vacancies arise. The Court made no order as to costs. The reasoning appears to be based on the submissions of both parties and the directive to consider the petitioner's case in line with the cited Government Order, implying that the delay in proceedings should not indefinitely bar consideration. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was resolved by a directive.

Facts

The petitioner, Armugam Venkata Muni, a Senior Assistant, seeks promotion to the post of Goods and Services Tax Officer (GSTO). His promotion is being withheld due to the pendency of departmental proceedings, despite charges being framed eight years prior. One charge memo was dropped in 2020. The other inquiry is concluded and pending with the Chief Commissioner for a final decision. The petitioner was ranked 9th in a seniority list dated 24.08.2024 and 3rd in a subsequent list dated 04.04.2025. He had previously filed a writ petition (W.P.No.30712 of 2022) seeking consideration for promotion, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to decide his representation within four weeks, but no order was passed. The petitioner apprehends that his case will again be overlooked due to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action in not considering the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of GSTO on the ground of pendency of departmental enquiry, despite the lapse of eight years from the date of framing of charges, is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of AP Civil Service (CC and A) Rules 1991? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that the prolonged delay in the disciplinary proceedings should not be a ground to deny him consideration for promotion. He relies on G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, asserting his entitlement to be considered as per its provisions. Respondents' Contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the petitioner's case will be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, if he is otherwise eligible and falls within the zone of consideration.