HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 1200 of 2003 DATED: 17.02.2011 Between: S. Madhusudhan Rao .. Petitioner And 1. The A.P. Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. 2. G.Seetharamayya, Dy. Zonal Manager .. Respondents O R D E R:- This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy Zonal Manager but promoting his junior vide proceedings dated 26.11.2001, as illegal and arbitrary, and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to promotion as Deputy Zonal Manager in preference to his junior. It appears that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk- cum-Typist in the Andhra Pradesh Infrastructure Corporation Limited, Hyderabad with effect from 07.01.1975. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Zonal Manager. While so, a charge memo dated 03.02.2000 was issued to him alleging that he did not take appropriate steps for eviction of the allottee of the shed and caused loss to the Corporation. It is stated that the petitioner submitted his explanation, but it was not considered. Further, on 26.11.2001, one of his juniors was promoted to the post of Deputy Zonal Manager ignoring the petitioner’s seniority and eligibility. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation dated 20.12.2001, but the respondents, instead of considering the same, issued another Charge Memo dated 16.02.2002 alleging that the petitioner did not prevent a saw-mill owner from encroaching the road margin. This charge was, however, dropped and even when this matter was placed before the Hon’ble Lokayukta, it was closed after full-pleged enquiry. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that he was denied promotion only on the ground that the charge memos issued against him were pending. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. As seen from the averments of the petitioner, the charges leveled against him, vide Charge Memos dated 03.02.2000 and 16.02.2002 respectively, were not proved, and in fact, they were dropped, and even to this extent, there is no dispute in the counter. These charges, which were dropped and closed were pressed into service only to deny promotion of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner had already attained the age of superannuation and retired from service in the year 2004, as such, the cause in this writ petition itself has become infructuous. I am afraid, I cannot agree to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the first instance, pendency of any enquiry itself prima facie cannot deny the promotion of an individual if he is otherwise eligible as per law. The only ground on which the promotion to the petitioner was denied is the issuance of the Charge Memos dated 03.02.2000 and 16.02.2002 respectively. During the pendency of the enquiry into the charges, when his junior was promoted on 26.11.2001 there cannot be any embargo for the respondent in promoting the petitioner on par with his juniors. Even in the counter, nothing is stated against the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner even otherwise was not eligible for promotion as Deputy Zonal Manager. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to his legitimate promotion to the post of Deputy Zonal Manager on par with his juniors with effect from 26.11.2001. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to promote the petitioner as Deputy Zonal Manager from the day on which his junior was promoted i.e. 26.11.2001 and extend him all other benefits notionally. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J 17th February, 2011 bcj