Telangana High Court
Ch. Chennaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 25 April, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 12829 OF 2025
O R D E R:
Inaction of respondents in considering the case of
petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional
Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) and Superintendent of
Police (Non-cadre) on par with his batchmate Sri P. Karunakar
is questioned in this Writ Petition.
2. Petitioner claims to be a Deputy Superintendent of
Police (direct recruitee) of 2010 Batch and belonging to
Scheduled Castes community. While working at Police Training
Centre, Khammam, he was stated to be placed under
suspension, on false and frivolous allegations with effect from
08.02.2018 to 19.07.2019 (later suspension period was treated
as on duty vide G.O.Rt.No. 1641, dated 18.08.2023). On
reinstatement, he was posted as DSP, CID and presently
discharging his services as such.
While so, based on the allegations levelled by one
realtor, the 2nd respondent - Director General of Police,
Telangana issued Memorandum dated 29.09.2017 initiating
departmental proceedings which culminated in drawing a
finding exonerating him of the alleged charge vide G.O.Rt.No.
1641, dated 18.08.2023 and treating his suspension period as
on duty.
It is stated, vide G.O.Ms.No. 34, dated 23.02.2021,
the Government of Telangana published a list of Deputy
Superintendents of Police fit for promotion as Additional
Superintendents of Police (Non-cadre) and also as
Superintendents of Police (Non-cadre) and his name figured at
Sl.No.2 for the panel year 2015-16 clearly establishing his
eligibility and seniority for the said promotion, however, his
immediate junior Sri P. Karunakar was considered for
promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police
(Non-cadre) in the panel year 2018-19 and later as
Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre).
According to petitioner, a complaint made by a
private individual, who could not obtain favourable orders in
civil disputes and against whom FIRs. have been registered
under his instructions, lead to initiation of departmental
proceedings and Cr.No. 6 was registered by ACB which
culminated in filing charge sheet, however, no charge was
framed in the said criminal case and discharge petition as well
as quash petition filed by him i.e. Crl.P.No. 6264 of 2023 is
pending before this Court. In view of the above, it is stated,
petitioner is not facing any departmental nor criminal charges
that would bar his promotion. Petitioner therefore, submitted
detailed representations dated 05.09.2023 and 10.01.2025, but
his case was not considered.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri K. Kiran Kumar
cites the cases of Sri G. Narsimha Reddy, Additional
Superintendent of Police and Smt. A. Madhavi Latha, Inspector
of Police who were denied promotions on the ground of ACB
cases. Both the said officers therefore, filed Writ Petitions No.
45490 of 2022 and 21147 of 2023 wherein this Court directed
the authorities to consider their case for ad hoc promotion
without reference to the pending criminal cases, based on
G.O.Ms.No. 257, dated 10.06.1999 which provides for effecting
promotion in spite of pendency of disciplinary cases against the
employees concerned.
4. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Home on behalf of respondents.
5. The grievance of petitioner is that though his name
was figured at Sl.No.2 for the panel year 2015-16 in Annexure-II
appended to G.O.Ms.No. 34, dated 23.03.2021 and though there
were no adverse remarks against him during the relevant
period, for the reasons best known to the authorities, he was
not granted promotion. Had he been promoted in the panel year
2015-16, based on seniority, he would have naturally been
promoted as Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) prior to Sri
P.Karunakar during the panel year 2018-19 during which
period, petitioner was kept under suspension.
6. In this connection, learned counsel draws attention
of this Court to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No. 45490 of 2022. In the said case also, petitioner was kept
under suspension and in view thereof, his case was not
considered for promotiononpar wih his juniors. However, in view
of the law laid down in A. Jalander Reddy v. State of
Telangana 1 and State of A.P. v. N. Shankar Prasad 2 this
Court held that whenever respondents are effecting promotions
to the post of Superintendent of Police (NC) in future, if there is
no charge memo or charge sheet pending against petitioner, he
2017 (4) ALT 225
W.P.No. 3315 of 2019, dated 23.01.2020
Of High Court of Andhra Pradesh
is eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Polcie
(NC).
7. In Writ Petition No. 21147 of 2023 also, this Court
in similar circumstances, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Harish Kumar Sharma, IFS v. State of
Punjab (Civil Appeal No. 11231-11232 of 2016), directed
respondents therein to consider the case of petitioner for ad hoc
promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police
without reference to the criminal case pending against him.
8. In the light of the same, since departmental enquiry
initiated against petitioner was culminated in exonerating him
and also the ACB case culminated in filing charge sheet wherein
no charges have been framed and discharge petition and quash
petition in Crl.P.No. 6264 of 2023 is pending before this Court,
the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents to consider
the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional
Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) and thereafter, as
Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) without reference to the
criminal case, pending against him. It is made clear, promotion,
however, is subject to the result of criminal / ACB cases and
departmental cases, if any. No costs.
9. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
25th April 2025
Issue CC today
ksld
