Anna Ranga Prasad Rao vs The State Of Andhra
2022 Latest Caselaw 4770 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4770 AP
Judgement Date : 1 August, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Anna Ranga Prasad Rao vs The State Of Andhra on 1 August, 2022

Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi

                               1




THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

             WRIT PETITION No.21114 of 2022

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for Service-VI.

2. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the

respondents in not considering the candidature of the

petitioner for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer

consequent on the acquittal order in C.C.No.15 of 2015,

dated 06.01.2017 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.529, G.A. (Services-

C) Department, dated 19.08.2008 as arbitrary and illegal.

3. The case of the petitioner is that while he was working

as Deputy Executive Engineer, he was suspended from

service on 10.07.2014 in view of pendency of ACB case filed

against him in C.C.No.15 of 2015 the Special Judge for SPE

and ACB cases, Kurnool; subsequently, he was reinstated

into service, pending finalization of the criminal proceedings;

Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Kurnool, acquitted the

petitioner on 06.01.2017; in view of his acquittal from

criminal proceedings, the petitioner made representation to

the respondents to consider his case for promotion, but the

said representation is not considered by the respondents and

the appeal filed against the said acquittal order is pending.

Hence, the Writ Petition.

4. Learned Government Pleader passed on instructions of

the Engineer-in-Chief, RWS&S, A.P., Vijayawada, stating inter

alia that the ACB authorities have filed Criminal Appeal

Petition No.1384 of 2017 before this Court and the same is

pending; as per the confirmed seniority list communicated by

the Department, the name of the petitioner was included at

Sl.No.75 and proposals submitted by the office for according

notional promotion are under consideration at the

Government level and that, as and when his turn comes, his

case will be considered for promotion duly verifying the

disciplinary cases pending at Government level, as per the

Rules in vogue.

5. A copy of G.O.Ms.No.529, General Administration

(Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008, is filed along with

the Writ Petition, which reads as follows:

"In the G.O.'s read above, orders were issued on the procedure to be followed to consider promotions when the employees are facing the disciplinary cases. It was ordered that where disciplinary cases are not concluded even after two years and the promotion to the employees is deferred due to pendency of the disciplinary cases, ad hoc promotions shall be considered pending finalization of the disciplinary cases. In spite of these specific orders, the Employees associations have brought to the notice of the Government that due to pendency of the disciplinary cases for years together, the employees are denied even the adhoc promotion for next higher categories. It is also brought to the notice of the Government that in criminal cases registered against the employees, such employees are not considered for promotion even though they are acquitted, due to appeal filed in the Higher Courts.

2. After careful consideration, Government direct to consider the cases of employees for promotion to the next higher categories wherever the charges are held not proved by the Criminal Court and acquitted them, even though an appeal is preferred before the higher Court against such acquittal.

3. All the Departments of Secretariat, Heads of Departments and District Collectors should follow the above instructions scrupulously and bring it to the notice of all the concerned for strict implementation."

6. As seen from the said paragraph, Government directed

to consider the cases of employees for promotion to the next

higher categories wherever the charges are held not proved by

the Criminal Court and acquitted them, even though an

appeal is preferred before the higher Court against such

acquittal. Even as seen from the written instructions, there is

no stay on the Judgment in C.C.No.15 of 2015, dated

06.01.2017.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances and in the light

of the written instructions, the respondents are directed to

consider the case of the petitioner, if he is within the zone of

consideration and if he is otherwise eligible for promotion in