Telangana High Court
Meda Rama Krishna Pitcheswara Rao vs The State Of Telangana on 13 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.21769 OF 2021
ORDER
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus
declaring the order passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.385/2018-M2,
dt.13.07.2021 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion as
Deputy Range Officer and Forest Range Officer on par with his
immediate junior in the category of Deputy Range Officer with effect
from 05.12.2012 and Forest Range Officer with effect from 21.05.2021
(on account of dropping the disciplinary proceedings by the 3rd
respondent vide order dt.29.09.2014) by relying upon G.O.Ms.No.331,
G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dt.03.05.2013 as illegal and arbitrary and
consequently to declare that the petitioner is entitled for notional
promotion and seniority in the categories of Deputy Range Officer and
Forest Range Officer on par with his immediate junior with all
consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders as this
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are
that the petitioner was working as a Forest Section Officer when the
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and punishment of
withholding of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed on
him. On the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were pending
against him, his case was not considered for further promotion.
Subsequently, in the appeal, the said punishment has been modified and
the proceedings were dropped by observing that the petitioner should be
more careful in future. Thereafter, on the ground that the disciplinary
proceedings have been dropped and that the petitioner is entitled for
promotion on par with his immediate Junior, one Mr.Ch.Yellaiah, the
petitioner has made a representation, but the same was rejected vide
order dt.13.07.2021 by placing reliance upon the guidelines issued in
G.O.Ms.No.331, G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dt.03.05.2013. Challenging
the same, this Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the observation
of the words used in the proceedings that "to be more careful in future"
is not a punishment enshrined in the rules and therefore it cannot be
treated as an impediment for granting promotion. He further submitted
that promotion to the next post of Deputy Range Officer was a non-
selection post and therefore, pendency of disciplinary proceedings itself
could not have been taken into consideration for denial of promotion. It
is submitted that unless and until the denial of promotion is by way of
punishment imposed, promotion cannot be rejected. He placed reliance
upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of
State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Home
Department and another Vs. Motupalli Narasimha Raju and
another 1 in support of his contention.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services, on the other hand,
while supporting the contentions raised in the counter affidavit,
submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were
not dropped, but modification of the order was made on account of
remittance of the amounts by the petitioner. Therefore, according to
him, it is not a clean acquittal or dropping of proceedings against the
petitioner and therefore, the same has been taken into consideration for
denying notional promotion on par with his juniors.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that though the words used in the proceedings "to be
W.P.No.3099 of 2017 dt.27.08.2021
more careful in future" is not a prescribed punishment, but the
Government has issued guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.331, G.A. (Ser.C)
Department, dt.03.05.2013 to consider such cases for promotion by
placing the same before the Departmental Promotion Committee. As
rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the post of
Deputy Range Officer is not a selection post and therefore, it is to be
given only by seniority and therefore, the issue of pendency of
disciplinary proceedings could not have been placed before the
Departmental Promotion Committee and could not have come in the
way of promotion to a non-selection post. The Coordinate Bench of
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh
represented by its Secretary, Home Department and another Vs.
Motupalli Narasimha Raju and another (1 supra) has taken into
consideration Rule 5(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate
Service Rules, 1996 which are ipso facto similar to that of the State of
Telangana and has held that promotion to the post of non-selection post
cannot be denied on the ground that disciplinary proceedings are
pending against the delinquent employee.
6. In view of the above judgment and also the rule position, this
Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dt.13.07.2021 and
direct the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders for
promotion of the petitioner on par with his immediate junior one Mr.
Ch.Yellaiah. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to
any monetary benefits on account of this notional promotion.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 13.03.2024
Svv
