Telangana High Court
Md. Fakruddin Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 15 November, 2023
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.12284 of 2019
ORDER:
Petitioner has challenged the action of respondents in denying
promotion to him on the ground of pendency of disciplinary
proceedings.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in the office of District
Educational Officer, Warangal. He was kept under suspension on
08.09.2013, on the ground that he failed to properly scrutinize the
applications of DSC 2012 candidates. Accordingly, a Charge Memo
was issued to him on 26.10.2013 for which, he has submitted his
detailed explanation on 06.11.2013. A criminal case was also
registered with regard to the said issue in the year 2014. Grievance
of the petitioner is that though inquiry report was submitted long
back i.e. on 24.11.2015, the proceedings against him are not
concluded on the ground of pendency of criminal case and on the
pretext of pendency of proceedings against him, he was denied
promotion to the post of Office Superintendent and his juniors are
being promoted. It is his case that questioning the action of
respondents, earlier, he filed W.P.No.35085 of 2017 which was
disposed of on 13.03.2019 directing the respondents to consider his
2 JS, J
W.P.No.12284 of 2019
case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999. Pursuant to said
orders, respondents have rejected his case. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents stating that the
petitioner has failed to properly scrutinize the applications of DSC
2012 candidates and 18 candidates of DSC 2008 and DSC 2012 were
found to have secured appointment basing on false Hearing
Handicapped Certificates. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted into
the matter and proceedings were initiated against the erring officials
including the petitioner herein. It is stated that since the
proceedings are yet to be concluded, the petitioner is not entitled for
promotion. Hence, prayed for dismissal of writ petition.
5. In this case, it is to be seen that the Charge Memo was issued
to the petitioner in the year 2013 and the proceedings are yet to be
concluded, meanwhile, according to the petitioner, about 30 of his
juniors were promoted. It appears that though the enquiry report is
submitted in the departmental proceedings, the same are not
concluded on the pretext of pendency of criminal case registered
against the petitioner in the year 2014, wherein, according to the
petitioner, evidence is yet to be recorded and it may take much more
time for its conclusion. In this regard, a reference can be made to
G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, as per which, case of an
employee can be considered for adhoc promotion, if the charge is not
3 JS, J
W.P.No.12284 of 2019
a grave one, not involving moral turpitude. In the present case, the
allegation against the petitioner is that he failed to properly scrutinize
the applications of DSC 2012 candidates. It is to be noted that there
are many other superior officials to carry out the scrutiny work and
the petitioner is only a Clerical Assistant, who cannot be expected to
identify whether a particular certificate enclosed by the candidate is
genuine or a fake one. His duty would be just to verify whether the
candidate has enclosed all the certificates or not. Be that as it may,
petitioner has relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of the High
Court of A.P. in State of Andhra Pradesh and another vs.
Ch.Venkat Rao 1, wherein, it is held that it is not proper to deny
promotion merely on the ground of pendency of disciplinary
proceedings and promotion can be deferred only upon imposition of
penalty and not otherwise. This judgment is squarely applicable to
the facts of the present case. In view of this judgment and also in
view of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, this Court is of the
considered view that the case of the petitioner can be considered for
promotion subject to outcome of the proceedings initiated against
him.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of
directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Office Superintendent from the date on
2022 (6) ALD 400 (AP) (DB)
4 JS, J
W.P.No.12284 of 2019
which his immediate junior was promoted within a period of four (04)
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However,
such promotion shall be subject to the outcome of the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The respondents are
further directed to pass appropriate orders in the disciplinary
proceedings insofar as petitioner is concerned and conclude the same
within a period of one year from today. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date:15.11.2023
Ksk
