(Prayer: 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 order or directions more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent without reference to the Charge Memo vide proceedings CR No.4961/2019/CPE/B3-3 dated 04- 11-2019 and also Charge Memo vide CR No. 12027/29/2020/CPE/B4 dated 27-04-2021 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent in the ensuing promotions for the panel year 2025-26 without reference to the Charge Memo vide proceedings CR No.4961/2019/CPE/B3-3 dated 04-11-2019 and also Charge Memo vide CR No. 12027/29/2020/CPE/B4 dated 27-04-2021, and 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 pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion as Assistant Prohibition & Excise Superintendent in the ensuing promotions for the panel year 2025-26 without reference to the charge memo vide proceedings CR NO.4961/2019/CPE/B3-10 dated 04-11-2019 and also Charge Memo vide CR No. 12027/29/2020/CPE/B4 dated 27-04-2021,pending disposal of the above writ petition and pas)

1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in not considering the claim of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, without reference to the charge memo issued vide Cr.No.4961/2019/CPE/B3-3, dated 04.11.2019 and Cr.No.12027/29/2020/CPE/B4, dated 27.04.2021, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The Petitioner is presently working as Prohibition and Excise Inspector and is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent. While so, the Petitioner was issued with a charge memorandum vide Cr.No.4961/2019/CPE/B3-3, dated 04.11.2019 by the Respondent No.2 and the solitary charge framed against the Petitioner which states that the Petitioner disobeyed the orders of his superiors by not joining the new place of posting during the general transfers and exhibited lack of discipline and devotion to duty.

3. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted his explanation and no progress was made out and no enquiry officer is said to have been appointed till date in so far as charge memorandum, dated 04.11.2019 and the enquiry was said to be pending.

4. Later, another charge memorandum was issued to the Petitioner vide Cr.No.12027/29/2020/CPE/B4, dated 27.04.2021. In the charge memorandum, dated 27.04.2021 two articles of charge were framed against the Petitioner and Article of Charge – I alleges that the Petitioner being a disciplined uniformed Government servant had committed gross negligence in discharging his legitimate duties by not maintaining the case files properly which were received from his predecessors. The Article of Charge – II alleges that the Petitioner being a disciplined uniformed Government servant did not obey the orders of his superior officers and did not hand over the charge of SHO, Macherla even after several instructions to his successor.

5. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed with regard to the charge memorandum, dated 27.04.2021 and an enquiry report, dated 24.12.2022 was submitted stating that the Article of Charge – I was not proved and Article of Charge – II was partly proved.

6. The grievance of the Petitioner now is that, on account of pendency of disciplinary enquiry, the promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent is not being considered. Hence, the Writ Petition came to be filed.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent would be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 and an appropriate decision will be taken in that regard.

8. Heard the counsels.

9. As regards the charge memorandum, dated 04.11.2019, the non-appointment of the enquiry officer even after lapse of 07 years clearly shows that there is no seriousness on the part of the Respondents in concluding the disciplinary enquiry. The non serious approach of the Respondents cannot be a hindrance for considering the case of the Petitioner for further promotion.

10. As regards, charge memorandum, dated 27.04.2021, the Article of Charge – I was held as unproved and Article of Charge – II was held as partly proved by the enquiry officer vide enquiry report, dated 24.12.2022 and no further action was taken in that regard. Going by the enquiry report, a minor penalty appear to be the only possibility and the same if imposed within reasonable time from the date of enquiry report, the tenure of penalty would have lapsed by now. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions:-

               (i) The Respondent-Authorities are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, without reference to the charge memorandums issued vide Cr.No.4961/2019/CPE/B3-3, dated 04.11.2019 and Cr.No.12027/29/2020/CPE/B4, dated 27.04.2021.

               (ii). No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall standclosed.