Telangana High Court
P. Praveen Kumar vs The State Of Telangana on 28 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.18326 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"... to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered and be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police Civil without reference to the charge memo issued by the 3rd Respondent vide Memorandum Rc No 96/PR1/Major/RCK/2017 dated 15122020 in respect of allegations relating back to the period from 20012012 on the analogy of Orders passed in similar cases duly holding the action of the Respondents in belatedly initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings and further denying promotion to the Petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of Police Civil on the ground of pendency of aforementioned charge memo dated 15122020 issued by the 3rd Respondent as being arbitrary illegal unjust vitiated by delay contrary to the time limit prescribed for completion of enquiries vide G O Ms No 679 dated 01112008 and provisions of Rule 20 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same accordingly in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents. Perused the material available on record.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) with effect from 11.06.2001. Subsequently, he was promoted as Inspector of Police (Civil) during the year 2010 and he is fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil). While so, a charge memo dated 15.12.2020 was issued by the third respondent for the alleged incident pertaining to the period from the year 2001 to 2012 and a case of disproportionate assets was registered against him vide FIR.No.1/ACB-HR/2012, dated 2 05.01.2012 by Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B) and in consequent to that he was placed under suspension on 07.01.2012 and later, he was reinstated into service on 25.11.2013 vide G.O.Rt.No.2229, dated 25.11.2013 and has been working as such till date. Thereafter, the A.C.B. officials had submitted final report 14.05.2016. It is further contended that the petitioner has made a representation to the Government on 11.07.2016 with a request to drop further action in ACB case. Upon such representation, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.880 Home (Special) Department, dated 20.08.2020, to initiate disciplinary action instead of prosecution. While so, the 3rd respondent has communicated a charge memo vide Rc.No.PR-I/Major/RCK/2017, dated 15.12.2020, alleging that the petitioner has not submitted annual property returns from the year 2010 to 2012 except for the year 2010 and that he has purchased the property in his name and in the name of his wife without obtaining prior permission. For which, the petitioner has submitted explanation dated 03.08.2021 requesting to drop further action. Without considering the same, the respondent-authorities, after lapse of eight months, once again issued memo, dated 28.05.2022, directing him to submit explanation. On receipt of the same on 13.06.2022, he has submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent inter alia stating that copies of statements of witnesses and documents were not furnished to him along with charge memo. Though, the petitioner has made request on 25.06.2022, the documents relied upon in the charge 3 memo have been furnished to him after lapse of more than ten months. Thereafter, he has submitted his detailed explanation on 19.06.2023 inter alia stating that he has been submitting the Annual Property Returns regularly and due to non-filing of the same by the Ministerial staff in his service book, he is being penalized. He further submits that the disciplinary proceedings and the impugned charge memo are vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay inasmuch as, the alleged incident pertains to the year prior to 2001-2012 and that charges were framed on 15.12.2020 and the enquiry is not yet commenced.
4. He further submits that panel information was called for vide proceedings dated 12.05.2023 to the post of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) for the panel year 2022-2023 and the name of petitioner was indicated at Sl.No.84. But, he was not given promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the juniors i.e. the names included below his name are promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil).
5. It is further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, the Competent Authority, after receipt of the inquiry report shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings within six months of its initiation. Further As per Rule 20 of Telangana State Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1991 time limit is prescribed for each stage of enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that it is well settled principle of law that right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right 4 guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and such a right is being defeated on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings, hence withholding of promotion would amount to imposition of penalty even before the allegations leveled or held proved. Therefore, he submits that the impugned charge memo has to be set aside on the ground of delay and laches. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal 1 and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in A.Rajeswara Reddy v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2.
6. Per contra, the Learned Special Government Pleader contends that in the current panel of Inspectors of police (civil), fit for adhoc promotions as Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil), for the year 2022-23, adhoc promotions have been issued to the eligible Inspectors of Police (Civil), based on the seniority list of Inspectors of Police (civil) issued vide memo in Rc.No.260/E1/2014, dated 13.04.2022 and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.153, Home (Ser.I) Dept., dated 05.10.2018. In the said seniority list, the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.653/3714 and he was assigned with notional seniority in the rank of Inspector of Police (Civil) w.e.f.01.09.2010. Further, at the time of preparation of above panel, as per the remarks furnished by Director General, ACB, vide letter C.No.49/RPC(C)/2023, dated 19.05.2023, he was involved in a case C.No.5/RCA-HRG/2012, and final report was sent to Government on 14.06.2016 recommending for prosecution and 1 (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 2 2010 (4) ALT 374 (DB) 5 departmental action. Upon such recommendations, the Government also issued orders dated. 20.08.2020 for departmental action and the departmental enquiry is still pending. It is further submitted that a major P.R. is pending vide Memorandum Rc.No.96/PR- 1/Major/RCK/2017, dated 15.12.2020 of Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda on the ground that he failed to submit Annual Property Returns to the Department during his entire service except for the year 2010 and he has not obtained permission for acquiring immovable properties mentioned therein. He further submitted that when his name came into the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) in the current panel year 2022- 23 and the Departmental Promotion Committee which met on 20.06.2023 examined the case of the petitioner and did not recommend his name for inclusion in the panel of Inspectors of Police, fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) for the current panel year 2022-2023 on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed his written statement on 19.06.2023 to the charge memo and an Enquiry Officer has been appointed to enquire into the charges vide R.O.No.203/2023, dated 15.07.2023 issued by Inspector General of Police, Multi Zone-II, Hyderabad.
7. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective Counsel.
6
8. A perusal of the record would discloses that while the petitioner was working as the Inspector of Police, the ACB officials registered a case against him on the ground of possessing disproportionate assets in FIR.No.1/ACB-HR/2012, dated 05.01.2012. The record further discloses that on the representation made by the petitioner, the Government issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.880, dated 20.08.2020 to initiate disciplinary proceedings instead of prosecution. Admittedly, the juniors of the petitioner were promoted ignoring his case on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are pending against him. The record further discloses on the allegation that he failed to submit annual returns to the department during his entire service except for the year 2010. For which, a charge memo was issued on 15.12.2020 with an inordinate delay. Further, though, an enquiry officer was appointed on 15.07.2023, the enquiry is not yet commenced. As per G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, the time limit prescribed for concluding the disciplinary proceedings is maximum period of six months. Therefore, in the present case, admittedly, charge memo was issued on 15.12.2020, though an enquiry officer has been appointed, the disciplinary proceedings have not yet been commenced.
9. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the law laid down by the Apex Court in Chaman Lal Goyal's case (1 supra) at para Nos.11 and 12, which is as under:
11. The principles to be borne in mind in this behalf have been set out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] . Though the said case pertained 7 to criminal prosecution, the principles enunciated therein are broadly applicable to a plea of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as well. In paragraph 86 of the judgment, this Court mentioned the propositions emerging from the several decisions considered therein and observed that "ultimately the court has to balance and weigh the several relevant factors -- balancing test or balancing process -- and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case". It has also been held that, ordinarily speaking, where the court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of the accused has been infringed, the charges, or the conviction, as the case may be, will be quashed. At the same time, it has been observed that that is not the only course open to the court and that in a given case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances may be such that quashing of the proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a case, it has been observed, it is open to the court to make such other appropriate order as it finds just and equitable in the circumstance of the case.
12. Applying the balancing process, we are of the opinion that the quashing of charges and of the order appointing enquiry officer was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately. This direction is made in the particular facts and circumstances of the case though we are aware that the rules and practice normally followed in such cases may be different. The promotion so made, if any, pending the enquiry shall, however, be subject to review after the conclusion of the enquiry and in the light of the findings in the enquiry. It is also directed that the enquiry against the respondent shall be concluded within eight months from today. The respondent shall cooperate in concluding the enquiry. It is obvious that if the respondent does not so cooperate, it shall be open to the enquiry officer to proceed ex parte. If the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aforesaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped.
10. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Court has to balance and weigh the several relevant factors, balancing test or balancing process and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. Admittedly, in the instant case, though the charge memo was issued on 15.12.2020 and an enquiry officer was appointed on 15.07.2023, the enquiry has not 8 yet been commenced. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (civil) without reference to charge memo dated 15.12.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J 28.12.2023 Nvl