D. Venkatesh Naik vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2151 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2151 AP
Judgement Date : 25 June, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

D. Venkatesh Naik vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 June, 2021

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

                WRIT PETITION NO.7982 OF 2021

ORDER:-

      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Services-I.

      Learned    counsel   for   the   petitioner   submits   that   the

petitioner has been acquitted in Calendar Case No.11 of 2014, vide

Judgment dated 06.06.2017 on the ground that the prosecution

has failed to prove that the petitioner has demanded and accepted

the bribe also or that he demanded a bribe for an "official favour"

etc.,. On this aspect he points out that in view of failure of the

prosecution to prove the case, the acquittal order was passed. He

draws the attention of this court to the proceedings vide Memo No.

18956/Vig.III(2)/2013, dated 12.09.2019, where by the Special

Chief Secretary to Government, conveyed that the Government

after careful examination of the matters in detail, have decided to

regularize the suspension period of the petitioner from 09.05.2013

to 17.06.2014 as "On Duty". Apart from that he also refers to the

letter addressed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration

to the Secretary to Government (Revenue), wherein, it is clearly

mentioned that in view of the petitioner's exoneration in the A.C.B

Case and regularization of the suspension period of the petitioner,

he is eligible for notional promotion as per G.O.Ms.No. 424, GA

(SER-C) Department, dated 25.05.1976.

      Learned counsel argues that despite such clear and

categorical recommendations and the clear acquittal on merits, the

notional promotion is still being denied referring to G.O.Ms.No.

331, dated 03.05.2013. He points out that the three conditions
                                      2

stipulated in the said G.O are not applicable to the case of the

petitioner.

      Therefore, he submits that this is a fit case, in which the

petitioner's case should be considered for promotion to the post of

R.D.O.

      On      the   other   hand,   learned   Government   Pleader   for

Services-I strongly opposed grant of any order in favour of

petitioner referring to G.O.Ms.No. 331, dated 03.05.2013 and

negative in the claim of the petitioner. He submits that as a matter

of right, the petitioner is not entitled to claim mandamus or a

direction against the respondents to grant him promotion.

After hearing both the counsel and considering their

respective submissions including the fact that the acquittal was

because of the failure of the prosecution to prove that the

petitioner demanded the bribe and accepted it, this court is of the

opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

This is supported by the letters submitted to the Secretary to

Government and also the order passed by the Chief Commissioner

of Land Administration dated 29.08.2017 by the highest officers in

the administration. Once there is an acquittal, regularization of the

suspension period and treating the period as "On Duty" denying

further benefits is not correct. The three conditions in G.O.Ms.No.

331, dated 03.05.2013 are also not applicable in the present case.