G.G.S.S Phani Kumar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1476 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                WRIT PETITION No.5600 of 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

"........to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as ACTO on the ground that ACB case is pending, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and violative of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of ACTO (Assistant Commercial Tax Officer), by ignoring the ACB case...."

2. It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner was

appointed as Junior Assistant on 17.11.1994 on

compassionate grounds in the Office of Commercial Tax

Department. On 28.07.2010 the petitioner was promoted as

Senior Assistant in the office of Commercial Tax Department.

On 16.12.2016 a crime was registered against the petitioner

under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he

was placed under suspension. On 04.07.2018, the

1st respondent issued proceedings revoking the suspension

and directed the 2nd respondent to post the petitioner to far

off place and non-focal post. On 19.07.2018 the

3rd respondent issued proceedings reinstating the petitioner

into service and posted in the office of AC (ST), Nidadavolu in

the existing vacancy as Senior Assistant. On 22.08.2017 the

5th respondent prepared revised seniority list of Senior

Assistants in which the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.227.

The 3rd respondent issued proceedings in Ref.P1/471/2007,

dated 21.12.2019 on the recommendation made by the

regular panels giving promotions to Senior Assistants to the

post of ACTO (Assistant Commissioner Tax Officer)

overlooking the case of petitioner for promotion, which is

illegal and arbitrary.

3. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.679, dated

01.11.2008 fixing the outer limit to complete the

departmental proceedings and in the matters of simple

charges, it should be completed within three months and six

months in case of grave charges. Taking into consideration of

said G.O the Division Bench of Combined High Court in

Government of A.P vs. A.Rajeswara Reddy1 directed the

respondents to consider the petitioner therein for promotion

without reference to the charge sheet. Following the said

judgment W.P.No.9656/2019 was also allowed by orders

dated 23.07.2019 and similarly W.P.No.11575/2019 was also

by order dated 26.08.2019. Hence, the petitioner requested to

direct the respondents to consider his case as stated supra.

4. None appeared for the respondents and no

representation was made on their behalf.

2010 (4) ALT 374

5. Admittedly, a crime was registered vide Crime

No.9/RCT-EWG/2016, dated 16.12.2016 against the

petitioner and he is due for promotion as per the seniority,

but, on account of failure to complete trial of the criminal

case registered against the petitioner, the petitioner's name

was not considered for promotion to the next higher cadre.

6. Though the criminal case is registered on 16.12.2016

and 4 ½ years period has been elapsed from the date of

initiation, non-consideration of the candidature of the

petitioner for the next higher post is contrary to the

G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Ser.C) Department,

dated 10.06.1999.

7. Since the request of the petitioner is limited, irrespective

of registration of Crime No.9/RCT-EWG/2016, dated

16.12.2016, the investigation is not completed, the petitioner

is entitled to claim benefit of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated

10.06.1999 or G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991 subject to the

terms and conditions contained in Para 5(c) of the

G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. Learned counsel for the

petitioner requested to consider the case of the petitioner in

terms of Para 5(c) of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999.

8. Since the request of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is to direct the respondents to follow

G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, no further adjudication is

necessary and it would suffice to issue a direction to the

respondents to consider the case of this petitioner for being

promoted to the next higher cadre subject to the conditions

contained in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, more

particularly, keeping in view of Para 5(c) of G.O.Ms.No.257,

dated 10.06.1999, in case charge sheet in the above crime is

not filed, the respondents are directed to follow

G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991.

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed

of. There shall be no Order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if

any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 09.03.2021

IS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION No.5600 of 2021

Date: 09-03-2021

IS