TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on Promotion</h1> <h3>State Of Andhra Pradesh Versus N. Radhakishan</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's decision directing the promotion of the respondent to the category of Director of ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Tribunal's decision to promote the respondent despite pending disciplinary inquiries.2. The impact of delay in disciplinary proceedings on the respondent's promotion.3. Legality of issuing a fresh charge memo without canceling the previous one.Summary:1. Validity of the Tribunal's Decision to Promote Respondent:The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed the promotion of the respondent to the category of Director of Town and Country Planning, ignoring the charge memos dated July 31, 1995, October 27, 1995, and June 1, 1996. The Tribunal held that since the panel prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on August 16, 1995, would lapse only on December 31, 1996, the respondent was entitled to promotion before that date. The Tribunal quashed the charge memo dated July 31, 1995, but allowed the State to proceed with the memos dated October 27, 1995, and June 1, 1996, without considering them for promotion purposes.2. Impact of Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings:The Tribunal found that the disciplinary inquiry initiated against the respondent had not progressed significantly since the memo dated December 22, 1987. The respondent argued that the charge memo dated July 31, 1995, was served just before the DPC meeting to deprive him of his promotion. The Tribunal noted the inordinate delay in framing charges and conducting the inquiry, deeming the State's explanation for the delay unsatisfactory. The Tribunal emphasized that the respondent had been promoted as Senior Joint Director of Town and Country Planning despite the pending inquiry, indicating administrative oversight.3. Legality of Issuing Fresh Charge Memo:The Tribunal observed that the memo dated July 31, 1995, related to incidents from 1978, 1979, and 1984, which were already the subject of the memo dated December 22, 1987, issued u/s 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1963. The Tribunal held that the memo dated July 31, 1995, issued u/s 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, was irregular as the earlier memo had not been canceled or annulled. The Supreme Court concurred that issuing a fresh memo without canceling the previous one was an irregularity but not an illegality that would vitiate the inquiry proceedings.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the State's appeal. The Court emphasized the importance of expeditious disciplinary proceedings and found the delay in the respondent's case unjustifiable. The Tribunal's directions to promote the respondent and disregard the memos dated October 27, 1995, and June 1, 1996, for promotion purposes were deemed appropriate. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
