Case Law Details
N.Srinivasa Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh And Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Promotion Consideration for Officer with Pending Disciplinary Inquiry
In a recent ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court addressed a writ petition filed by N.Srinivasa Rao, a former Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, challenging the denial of his promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner of State Tax. The denial stemmed from a pending departmental inquiry that had been initiated against him over two years prior but had not been concluded. The court’s decision hinged on the adherence to established administrative rules regarding the timely conclusion of such inquiries.
N.Srinivasa Rao, who was appointed as a Commercial Tax Officer in 1998 and later promoted to Deputy Commissioner, was issued Articles of Charges on March 9, 2023. The charges alleged that he had developed a private website parallel to the official GST Portal, which was seen as a lack of integrity and discipline. While he submitted a written explanation denying the allegations, an Inquiry Officer was appointed on January 8, 2024, and the proceedings remained unresolved for a prolonged period. Due to the pendency of this inquiry, the authorities rejected his claim for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner of State Tax via a memo dated January 25, 2023.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the authorities had failed to adhere to the timelines prescribed for departmental inquiries. Citing G.O.Ms.No.679 dated November 1, 2009, read with G.O.Ms.No.91 dated September 12, 2022, which set a timeframe of three to six months for concluding such proceedings, the counsel contended that Rao could not be indefinitely denied his right to be considered for promotion. The counsel also referenced G.O.Ms.No.257 dated June 10, 1999, which provides a framework for considering employees for promotion even when a departmental inquiry is pending. The Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents acknowledged the delay and assured the court that the inquiry would be concluded expeditiously.
Acknowledging the significant delay and the lack of progress in the departmental inquiry, the court disposed of the writ petition with the consent of both parties. The court issued a clear set of directions aimed at rectifying the procedural lapse. Firstly, it mandated the respondents to consider Rao for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner of State Tax, provided he was in the zone of consideration and possessed the requisite qualifications, in accordance with the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.257. This directive specifically addresses the petitioner’s immediate grievance regarding his promotion prospects.
Secondly, the court imposed a strict six-month deadline for the completion of the disciplinary proceedings, with the clock starting from the date of the receipt of the court’s order. This directive directly enforces the administrative timelines that the respondents had previously failed to meet.
Finally, in a measure to ensure accountability, the court directed that the Disciplinary Authority, the Enquiry Officer, and the Presenting Officer would be held answerable for any further delays in concluding the inquiry within the stipulated timeframe. The court’s ruling underscores the principle that departmental inquiries should not be used as a means to indefinitely stall an employee’s career progression, and that administrative authorities are obligated to follow their own prescribed rules and timelines.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioners of State Tax, on account of pendency of departmental enquiry, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The facts leading to file the present Writ Petition are as follows:-
The Petitioner was appointed as Commercial Tax Officer, Chinna Waltair, Visakhapatnam Division vide Orders dated 18.12.1998 and his service was regularized in the year 2013. Subsequently, the Petitioner was promoted as Deputy Commissioner (CT), which was re-designated as Joint Commissioner of State Tax.
3. While so, Articles of Charges was issued vide G.O.Rt.No.239 Revenue (VI) Department, dated 09.03.2023 against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner had developed a private website parallel to GST Portal and thereby exhibited lack of integrity and discipline. The Petitioner had submitted written explanation denying the allegations. Subsequently Inquiry Officer was appointed on 08.01.2024, but the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Petitioner were not concluded even after lapse of two years.
4. Due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the Respondent Authorities did not consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioners of State Tax. In that scenario, the Petitioner submitted a representation for considering his case for promotion, however, the Respondent No.1 issued Memo No. REV01-CCST0CCTE (PROM)/4/ 2022-CT-1, dated 25.01.2023 rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioner of State Tax. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition came to be filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government has provided timeline for concluding departmental enquiries specifically three months in case of simple cases and six months in case of complex cases in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2009 read with G.O.Ms.No.91 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 12.09.2022, inspite of the same, the Respondents were not adhering to the aforesaid timelines in concluding the enquiry, therefore, the Petitioner cannot be denied his right to be considered for promotion. Even otherwise, the Petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents on the other hand submits that enquiry would be concluded as expeditiously as possible.
7. Having heard the respective counsel and taking note of the fact that there is no progress in the departmental enquiry contrary to the time frame as fixed vide G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.09.2022, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition, with the consent of both the counsel at admission stage, with following directions:
(i) The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Commissioners of State Tax in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, if the Petitioner is in the zone of consideration with requisite qualifications.
(ii) The Respondents are also directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) The Disciplinary Authority as well as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer shall be answerable for the delay in concluding the enquiry within the time frame as mentioned above.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
