Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 641 (AP)

Nannam Chinna Reddaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-05-02

CHALLA GUNARANJAN

body2025
ORDER : Challa Gunaranjan, J. Petitioner, who has been working as Horticulture Officer has been imposed with major penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect besides recovery of loss caused to Government to the tune of Rs.2,77,334/-, vide G.O.Ms.No.31, Agriculture and Co-operation (VIG.I) Department, dated 14.03.2024, issued by 1 st respondent. Assailing the said order, he preferred W.P. No.10499 of 2024. This Court, by interim order dated 03.05.2024, suspended aforesaid impugned order pending writ petition. As petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture under the guise of pendency of departmental proceedings, and that the respondents have deferred his promotion by issuing memo dated 27.07.2023, assailing the said memo, he preferred W.P. No.17970 of 2024. 2. Since both these writ petitions are interconnected, they are heard together and disposed of by present common order. 3. (a) Petitioner, while working as Horticulture Officer at Dharmavaram in Anantapur District, was issued charge memo vide No.Estt.I(2)09/2017, dated 03.01.2019, on the allegations that he violated procedures and guidelines of the State Plan Schemes while recommending payments of subsidy to the farmers which caused loss of public money, accordingly two Articles of Charges were communicated. Petitioner submitted explanation on 28.01.2019 refuting aforesaid charges. The 2 nd respondent has thereafter by proceedings dated 07.03.2019 appointed Presenting Officer, however, no further proceedings came to be conducted in pursuance to above charge Memo. (b) Subsequently, 2 nd respondent at the instance of 1 st respondent has, in supersession of earlier charge memo dated 03.01.2019, issued fresh charge Memo vide No.Estt.I(2)09/2017, dated 20.01.2020, on the allegation that he has not distributed the government subsidies to eligible farmers and credited the same to bogus accounts for his personal gain and therefore had set out two Articles of Charges. Petitioner was also communicated with Memo dated 13.08.2020 along with copies of statements recorded by ACB during the investigation and called upon to submit his explanation. Accordingly, petitioner submitted explanation on 31.08.2020 to 2 nd respondent refuting the allegations levelled against him. 2 nd respondent in turn vide letter dated 24.11.2021 forwarded the explanation of petitioner to 1 st respondent for taking further action. Accordingly, petitioner submitted explanation on 31.08.2020 to 2 nd respondent refuting the allegations levelled against him. 2 nd respondent in turn vide letter dated 24.11.2021 forwarded the explanation of petitioner to 1 st respondent for taking further action. (c) 1 st respondent has thereafter issued G.O.Rt.No.288, Agriculture and Co-operation (VIG.I) Department, dated 10.05.2022, appointing Mr.K.Venkata Ramireddy, Member, Commissioner of Inquiries, as Enquiry Authority and likewise, issued G.O.Rt.No.289, Agriculture and Co-operation (VIG.I) Department, dated 10.05.2022, appointing Mr.K.Giri Babu, Inspector of Police, as Presenting Officer. (d) Upon completion of enquiry, petitioner submitted detailed written arguments on 08.02.2023 and requested to exonerate him from charges. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry and submitted report, which was in turn forwarded to petitioner vide Memo No.ACG01-AGRI/82/2019, dated 06.03.2023, calling upon him to submit representation, if any, on the findings of Enquiry Officer. Petitioner has submitted representation/explanation to the 2 nd respondent on 03.04.2023 and to the 1 st respondent on 02.05.2023, rebutting the findings of Enquiry Officer and requested to exonerate from charges. Petitioner has specifically pleaded that the conclusions drawn by Enquiry Officer was not by any cogent evidence rather mere on presumptions and assumptions. Later, 2 nd respondent by letter dated 21.07.2023 informed 1 st respondent that out of the misappropriated amount, Rs.4,00,000/- came to be recovered from three fake Pattadar Passbook holders namely A.Veeranjaneyulu, P.Kavitha and P.Vijayalakshmi and the remaining amount of Rs.2,77,334/- to be recovered. (e) 1 st respondent has ultimately issued G.O.Ms.No.31, dated 14.03.2024, imposing major penalty of withholding of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 9 of A.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, besides ordering recovery to the tune of Rs.2,77,334/- from petitioner. Assailing the same, petitioner preferred W.P. No.10499 of 2024. (f) As stated above, the petitioner was appointed as Horticulture Officer and completed probation in the year 2004, while discharging duties as such at Dharmavaram, he was proceeded with disciplinary action. Assailing the same, petitioner preferred W.P. No.10499 of 2024. (f) As stated above, the petitioner was appointed as Horticulture Officer and completed probation in the year 2004, while discharging duties as such at Dharmavaram, he was proceeded with disciplinary action. Petitioner being eligible and entitled for further promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture, as was not being considered, preferred W.P. No.17103 of 2023 before this Court for direction to respondents to consider his case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.529, dated 19.08.2018, in which, interim order was passed on 13.07.2023, directing respondents to consider the case of petitioner in terms of aforesaid G.O. (g) The 2 nd respondent by impugned Memos vide No.Estt- I(1)05/2023, dated 27.07.2023 and 06.06.2024 respectively, deferred the case of petitioner for promotion having regard to the disciplinary proceedings. Assailing the same, petitioner preferred W.P. No.17970 of 2024. 4. Heard Sri Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel, appearing for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services – II appearing for the respondents. 5. (a) Respondents have filed counter in both writ petitions. In W.P. No.10499 of 2024, respondents in the counter tried to justify the action taken by 1 st respondent in imposing the punishment inter alia stating that as both charges against petitioner were found to be proved in the enquiry report, which was based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence on record and having found that there was loss caused to the Government to the tune of Rs.2,77,334/-, rightly punishment came to be imposed withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect besides ordering of recovery of the aforesaid amount. It is also stated that the Enquiry Authority has given due opportunity to petitioner and having examined the witnesses in the course of enquiry has recorded categorical findings on the aforesaid alleged charges, therefore, no interference is called for. (b) Insofar as, W.P. No.17970 of 2024 is concerned, respondents in the counter have inter alia stated that the charges against the petitioner were found to be true and was imposed major penalty besides recovery of amounts, which is subject matter in W.P. No.10499 of 2024, the promotion has been deferred awaiting outcome of the same. Even in the speaking orders dated 06.06.2024, it was made clear that request of petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture would be examined for the panel year 2022-2023 subject to outcome of aforesaid writ petition. Even in the speaking orders dated 06.06.2024, it was made clear that request of petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture would be examined for the panel year 2022-2023 subject to outcome of aforesaid writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the impugned order of punishment passed by 1 st respondent suffers from serious illegality inasmuch as the same is in clear violation of Rule 21(3) of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (herein after, ‘Rules, 1991’) which mandates the 1 st respondent to record the findings on the representation of petitioner before proceeding with the decision of imposing penalty, which is clearly lacking in the present case. Even otherwise, the other serious infirmity being that the impugned order does not record any reasons in coming to the conclusion that charges against petitioner are proved and the punishment awarded is proportionate to the said charges. He further contended that 1 st respondent being a Quasi Judicial Authority is bound to record the reasons which is basic feature of principles of natural justice in deciding the matters by Quasi Judicial Forums in making decisions. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner in the representation/explanation submitted to 1 st respondent rebutting the enquiry report has categorically pleaded that the findings arrived were not based on any cogent evidence and surmises and conjunctures, despite elaborate explanation, 1 st respondent has simply brushed aside the same without even adverting to the same. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.N.Mukherjee v. Union of India , [ (1990) 4 SCC 594 ] 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader contended that the charges against petitioner are serious in nature as petitioner involved in misuse of state funds in diverting the same by granting subsidy to fictitious persons, it has been clearly established before the Enquiry Authority and therefore, 1 st respondent having regard to the said enquiry report, came to conclusion that charges against petitioner are clearly proved and thereby imposed punishment of major penalty exercising powers under Rule 9 of Rules, 1991. He further contended that the procedure contemplated under Rule 21 of Rules has not been violated. He further contended that the procedure contemplated under Rule 21 of Rules has not been violated. He also contended that petitioner himself in his letter dated 01.11.2022 addressed to District Horticulture Officer has admitted that the subsidy amounts being sanctioned to three farmers, who produced fake Pattadar passbooks, out of the total amount of Rs.6,77,334/-, the said farmers have rebutted Rs.4,00,000/- back and they sought for time to repay the remaining amounts, in view of the clear admission, petitioner cannot now plead technicalities in laying challenge to the punishment imposed. 8. Perused the record and considered submissions made by respective counsel. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner mainly argued on the aspect of violation of Rule 21(3) & (4) of Rules, 1991 and the impugned order lacking findings and reasons in support of the decision making. Learned counsel also contended that the Enquiry Authorities findings were not based on any evidence, and rather mere conjunctures and surmises. In view of aforesaid main contention, merits of the matter were not addressed. In order to appreciate aforesaid contention, Rule 21 of A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, reads thus: “Action on the inquiry report: 21 (1) The disciplinary authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 20 as far as may be. (2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favorable or not to the Government servant. (3) The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the Govt. (3) The disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, submitted by the Govt. servant and record its findings before proceeding further in the matter as specified in the subrules (4) and (5) below: (4) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9, should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 22, make an order imposing such penalty: Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making any order imposing any penalty on the Government servant. (5) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (x) of Rule 9 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Govt. servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed: Provided that in every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the record of the inquiry shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice and such advice shall be taken into consideration before making an order imposing any such penalty on the Govt. servant". 10. Plain reading of aforesaid Rule would go to show that after the enquiry report has been placed before the disciplinary authority, it is required to forward such report to the delinquent calling upon him to submit written representation or submission within fifteen days. Once such representation submitted, the disciplinary authority is mandated to consider the same and record its findings before further proceeding with the matter to formulate an opinion that, having regard to the said findings, the same would attract any of the penalties though specified in clauses (i) to (ix) of Rule 9 and pass order imposing such penalty. Once such representation submitted, the disciplinary authority is mandated to consider the same and record its findings before further proceeding with the matter to formulate an opinion that, having regard to the said findings, the same would attract any of the penalties though specified in clauses (i) to (ix) of Rule 9 and pass order imposing such penalty. The sub-Rule (3) of Rule 21 used expression ‘shall’ and ‘its’ meaning thereby it is mandatory on the part of disciplinary authority to consider the representation of delinquent and record findings of its own before proceedings to the next stage of sub- Rule (4) and (5). In other words, it is mandatory for the disciplinary authority to render specific findings on the representation and based on such findings as to whether the gravity of charges deserves penalties those specified under clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 9. It requires clear application of mind and consideration to the objections raised by delinquent, followed by reasons for such opinion. 11. Coming to the present case, the impugned G.O. by which punishment has been imposed, reads thus: “8. In the reference 9 th read above, the Charged Officer Sri N. Chinna Reddaiah, the then Horticulture Officer, Dharmavaram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, has submitted representation, duly denying the findings of the Inquiring Authority and requested to drop further action in the matter. 9. Coming to the present case, the impugned G.O. by which punishment has been imposed, reads thus: “8. In the reference 9 th read above, the Charged Officer Sri N. Chinna Reddaiah, the then Horticulture Officer, Dharmavaram Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, has submitted representation, duly denying the findings of the Inquiring Authority and requested to drop further action in the matter. 9. In the reference 10 th read above, the Commissioner of Horticulture, A.?., Guntur, has informed that, Sri N.ChinnaReddaiah has filed W.P.No.24362/2023 in the Hon'ble High Court, A.P., Amaravati, to declare the action of the respondents in delaying the adjudication of the disciplinary proceedings initiated in contravention of the A.P. Civil Services (CC & A) Rules, 1991 and in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No.288, A & C (Vig.1) Dept., dt.10-5-2022 and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the said and promote the writ petitioner without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated for the 2 nd time in pursuance of the said G.O. The Hon'ble High Court has disposed off the above writ Petition and issued the, following orders dt.09.10.2023: "In view of the fact that the petitioner has already participated in the inquiry conducted in pursuance of the G.O.Rt.No.288, dated 10-5-2022 and inquiry is also completed, final orders are yet to be issued, this court feels it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the 1 st respondent to pass final orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by duly taking into consideration of the memo dated 2-11-2018 wherein it was decided by 2 nd respondent that no action is required against the petitioner". 10. After consultation of the matter with the Advisory Department, the Government have taken a provisional decision to impose the penalty of "Withholding of (2) Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect", under rule 9 of A.P.Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, against Sri N.Chinna Reddaiah, Horticulture Officer, Dharmavaram Mandal, Ananthapuram District and presently working as Horticulture Officer, Madakasira, besides recovery of the loss caused to Government to a tune of Rs.2,77,334/- from him and requested the Secretary, APPSC, Vijayawada, in the reference 11 th read above, to place the said decision before the Commission for its concurrence and communicate the same to Government.” 12. A close scrutiny of aforesaid paras from the impugned G.O., it is clearly discernible that except for referring to the aspect of petitioner submitting representation denying the findings of enquiry authority, it clearly does not meet the mandatory requirement of Rule 21(3) which requires recording of findings. The 1 st respondent strangely states that after consulting the matter with Advisory Department has taken provisional decision to impose the penalty of withholding two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. At first instance, the 1 st respondent ought to have recorded definitive findings on the aspect of the articles of charges whether proved or disproved and reasons for coming to such conclusion and later to delve into the aspect of imposition of penalty considering gravity of the charges. Straight away, 1 st respondent has jumped to impose penalty, without examining the findings of Enquiry Officer qua explanation of petitioner and forming opinion. Therefore, it is very much clear that 1 st respondent in clear violation of Rule 21 (3) & (4) issued the impugned punishment order. 13. On the point of recording of reasons by Quasi Judicial body and also the disciplinary authority, learned counsel for petitioner referred to the following judgments: (i) Hon’ble Apex Court in S.N.Mukherjee’s case (supra) has considered in detail the requirement of recording of reasons by Quasi Judicial bodies and emphatically stated as under: “35. The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decision-making. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decision-making. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a Judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the standpoint of policy and expediency. 36. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. 40. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. 40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision.” (ii) Hon’ble Apex Court in Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee , [ (2025) 4 SCC 111 ] , while dealing with a case of disciplinary proceedings against and testing the orders passed by disciplinary authority as confirmed by appellate authority with respect to adequacy of reasons recorded held thus: “34. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment [Pradip Kumar Banerjee v. AAI, 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 2248], further observed that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority did not consider the representation of the respondent and acted without application of mind while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service against the respondent. On a perusal of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, we find that the representation submitted by the respondent has been duly adverted to and objectively considered by both the authorities and the same were found to be devoid of substance. 35. It is trite law that in disciplinary proceedings, it is not necessary for the disciplinary authority to deal with each and every ground raised by the delinquent officer in the representation against the proposed penalty and detailed reasons are not required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment if he accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Our view stands fortified by the decision of this Court in Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank [Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank, (2021) 3 SCC 806 : (2021) 1 SCC (L&S) 624] , wherein it was held : (SCC p. 810, para 11) “11. … Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. … Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority.” 36. All that is required on the part of the disciplinary authority is that it should examine the evidence in the disciplinary proceedings and arrive at a reasoned conclusion that the material placed on record during the course of enquiry establishes the guilt of the delinquent employee on the principle of preponderance of probabilities. This is precisely what was done by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority while dealing with the case of the respondent.” Thus, the impugned order since does not record any specific findings or reasons upon objective consideration, much less recording that it accepts the findings of enquiry officer and proceeds to arrive provisional decision to impose penalty is in the teeth of above judgments, does not stand scrutiny. Though disciplinary authority is not required to record and provide elaborate and exhaustive reasons, the order should reflect semblance of reasons, which is completely absent in the present case. 14. Learned Government Pleader has tried to persuade this Court by contending that petitioner has made admission by his letter dated 01.11.2022 that the subsidy amounts were disbursed to farmers who are otherwise not eligible and that the part of the amounts have been paid back by such farmers, which clearly establishes the guilt of petitioner. This Court cannot look into a single letter in isolation, the entire enquiry report and the objections placed by petitioner to the said report have to be considered in pragmatic way having regard to the each finding and explanation thereto made by petitioner, even the learned counsel for petitioner also referred to the representation/ explanation wherein petitioner has candidly stated that the findings arrived by enquiry authority were not based on evidence and mere surmises and conjunctures. It is the bounden duty and function of the 1 st respondent to consider and evaluate the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded in the enquiry report, having regard to the representation/objections of petitioner as 1 st respondent miserably failed to undertake the said exercise objectively, with such pragmatic view the same clearly contravenes and violates the requirement of Rule 21 of Rules, 1991, therefore, impugned orders in G.O. Ms.No.31, dated 14.03.2024, imposing punishment on the petitioner is unsustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. 15. Petitioner is stated to be due for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Director of Horticulture, but for pendency of the departmental proceedings, he would have otherwise been promoted as such. The subject matter of disciplinary proceedings has culled out from the charge memos clearly go to show that the period of allegations of the year 2011 to 2017, the disciplinary proceedings were supposed to have been completed within a period of three months in case of simple cases and six months in case of complex cases in terms of G.O.Ms.No.679, dt:01.11.2008 and vide G.O.Ms.No.91, dt:12.09.2022. 16. Apparently, in the present case, 1 st charge memo was issued on 03.01.2019 and later in supersession fresh charge memo came to be issued on 20.01.2020 and after inordinate delay ultimately the enquiry was ended on 14.03.2024. As this Court has found that the punishment imposed on petitioner is clearly in violation of Rule 21 (3) & (4) of Rules, 1991, and that the same is set aside, also considering the fact that petitioner has already been deprived of his legitimate right to be considered for promotion long back, he is entitled to be now considered for such promotion. Even the respondents in the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 have stated that the promotion has been withheld on account of pendency of W.P. No.10499 of 2024 and that he would be considered for promotion subject to outcome of the same for the panel year 2022-2023. As petitioner has stated that even his juniors have already promoted, it is now the reason for the petitioner deserved to be considered for promotion. 17. As petitioner has stated that even his juniors have already promoted, it is now the reason for the petitioner deserved to be considered for promotion. 17. In view of the observations made above, the following common orders are passed in both these writ petitions: (a) W.P. No.10499 of 2024 is allowed by setting aside the impugned order vide G.O.Ms.No.31, Agriculture and Co-operation (VIG-I) Department, dated 14.03.2024, issued by 1 st respondent and the same is remanded back for reconsideration in accordance with law. (b) W.P. No.17970 of 2024 is also allowed by setting aside the impugned proceedings No.Estt-I(1)05/2023, dated 27.07.2023 and dated 06.06.2024 respectively, issued by the 1 st respondent and respondents are further directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Director of Horticulture with effect from the date of promotion of his immediate juniors by granting appropriate notional seniority within a period of four weeks from today. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed.