THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.23600 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is working as General Manager (Operations) in the A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, Visakhapatnam. He is due for promotion to the post of Chief General Manager. The Chairman and Managing Director of the Company, the 1st respondent herein, initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, in relation to the service of the petitioner in his capacity as Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations). The Chief General Manager, Disciplinary Cases and Enquiry Officer, the 4th respondent herein, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He issued an article of charges vide proceedings dated 04.05.2011, and required the petitioner to submit the explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the memo. The petitioner challenges the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings. According to him, the step was taken only to deny him the promotion. He seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case without reference to the memo, dated 04.05.2011. Heard Smt.S.V.Indira, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. Jyothi Eshwar Gogineni, learned counsel for the respondents. To a certain extent, the petitioner challenges the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings through memo. However, his principal contention is that his case be considered for promotion to the post of Chief General Manager, without reference to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. This Court is not inclined to examine the first limb of the relief. It is not stated either that the 1st respondent is not competent to initiate the proceedings, or that the 4th respondent is not conferred with the jurisdiction to issue the impugned memo. The question as to whether the charges against the petitioner are true and if so what consequences would flow out of them, needs to be considered in the departmental enquiry. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the memo as such. So far as the second part of the relief is concerned, the petitioner wants that his case be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Chief General Manager, without reference to the pending disciplinary proceedings. In this context, the field is covered by the service regulations that are adopted by the Company. They are to the effect that wherever an Enquiry Officer is appointed and charges are framed against an Officer, his case would certainly be considered for promotion in the due course. The only difference is that in the event of his being selected, an endorsement would be made against his name, to the effect that the disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, if it emerges that the charges are dropped and the employee is exonerated, the orders of promotion have to be issued with effect from the date on which his junior in the cadre was promoted. On the other hand, if any punishment is imposed, the effect thereof shall be reflected in the promotion. The case of the petitioner squarely fits into the Rules, referred to above. His case deserves to be considered, notwithstanding the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. However, in the event of his being found fit for selection, the issuance of order of appointment has to be deferred till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Depending on the out come of the proceedings, further steps must be taken. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that, a) the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief General Manager, as and when the process is undertaken, notwithstanding the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, as per the regulations; b) the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and c) the manner in which the promotion of the petitioner shall be treated would depend upon the out come of the disciplinary proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:27.08.2011 GJ