Telangana High Court

Venkata Krishna Reddy Gandhari vs The State Of Telangana on 13 March, 2025

                                           1



               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                              W.P.No.15717 of 2024
                                       and
                               C.C.No.1822 of 2024
ORDER:

The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:s

"To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned action of the 4th respondent in not showing the place of posting on promotion as School Assistant (Telugu) of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 4th respondent to pass appropriate proceedings posting the petitioner as School Assistant (Telugu) at MPUPS, Ravelli, Toopran mandal, Medak district immediately".

2. Heard Sri K.Ram Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I

appearing for respondents and perused the record.

3. According to the petitioner, while he was working as Language

Pandit (Telugu), the respondent No.4 placed him under suspension

and issued Charge Memo No.4610/A3/2023 dated 17.2.2024,

alleging that the petitioner has committed certain irregularities while

performing his legitimate duties. However, petitioner was reinstated

into service vide proceedings dated 18.4.2024. Thereafter, a regular

enquiry was conducted and the enquiry Officer, after conducting

enquiry, submitted his report vide letter dated 13.6.2024 holding

that the charge against the petitioner as "not proved". However, final

decision is yet to be taken by the disciplinary authority on the

enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer.

4. While so, the respondents have conducted web counseling for

affecting promotions and postings to the posts of School Assistants

(Telugu) and as per the schedule, petitioner was given web option,

indicating priority of the school on the basis of seniority of

SGTs/LPs/PETs who are eligible for promotion to the post of School

Assistant (Telugu) local body. In the said list, petitioner was shown

at Serial No.14 and he opted 20 places of schools in the order of

preference, first one being MPUPS, Ravelli and the last one being

MPUPS, Achampet. Thereafter, basing on the seniority list and web

options submitted by the eligible candidates, the respondent No.4

passed common posting orders on 18.6.2024 under Multi Zone-I,

Medak district, promoting as many as 140 Language Pandits

(Telugu). In the said proceedings, the name of the petitioner was

shown at Serial No.14 against roster point 20 promoting him School

Assistant (Telugu), but in the column "place of posting", it was

shown as "disciplinary case pending". The learned counsel for the

petitioner further submits that though the petitioner was promoted

as School Assistant (Telugu), he was not given posting order without

any justification. Further, the first preference exercised by the

petitioner in the web option viz. MPUPS Ravelli, Toopran mandal was

kept unfilled and is vacant. Therefore, learned counsel submits that

pendency of disciplinary proceedings, which has been concluded, but

waiting for final decision is not a bar for giving posting order to the

petitioner. Hence, petitioner is entitled to be posted in the first

preference exercised by him i.e. MPUPS Ravelli, Toopran mandal.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I

submits that the petitioner was appointed as Language Pandit

(Telugu) in April 2002 and while the petitioner working at MPPS,

Gajagatlapally village, Shankarampet mandal on deputation, a news

item was published in Eenadu newspaper on 16.12.2023 under the

caption "Vidhulaku Raakundane Jeetham Tisukuntunna

Upadyayudu" in district edition. The Mandal Education Officer

concerned, on the directions of the District Educational Officer,

Medak, has conducted and submitted a preliminary report stating

that the petitioner sat in the staff-room without taking teaching

classes and also disobeyed the instructions of Headmaster and not

updated the school records and also he is irregular to his duties.

Based on the said report, petitioner was placed under suspension

vide proceedings Rc.No.4610/A3/2023 dated 23.12.2023 of

respondent No.4 and thereafter petitioner was issued a Charge Memo

vide proceedings No.4610/A3/2023 dated 17.2.2024 under Rule 20

of TCS (CCA) Rules, 1991, and after conducting enquiry, punishment

of "Censure" was imposed against the petitioner vide proceedings

Rc.No.4610/A3/2023 dated 2.9.2024. It is further contended by the

learned Government Pleader that the respondent No.2 issued

instructions vide Proceedings Rc.No.215/Ser.III/2015 dated

7.6.2024 for upgradation of 8630 Language Pandits as School

Assistants (Languages) and 1849 Physical Education Teachers (PETs)

as School Assistant (Physical Education) in Government

Schools/MPUPS/Zilla Praja Parishad High Schools in the State and

as per the same, seniority list of Language Pandits was prepared, in

which petitioner was shown at Serial No.14, but due to non-

conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, his case was not considered

for promotion/upgradation. Later, disciplinary proceedings were

concluded duly following the CCA Rules and punishment of

"Censure" was awarded against the petitioner vide proceedings

Rc.No.4610/A3/2023 dated 2.9.2024, hence the petitioner will be

debarred for promotion for a period of one year, therefore, there are

no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

In support of the same, the learned Government Pleader has relied

on the decision of this Court in K.Babu v. State of Telangana and

others 1.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the respective

parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that

admittedly in the seniority list of Language Pandits, petitioner was

shown at Serial No.14, and based on which, he was allowed to

exercise his option for place of posting to the upgraded post of School

Assistant and thereafter the respondents have issued proceedings

dated 18.6.2024, affecting promotions and postings of School

Assistants (Languages), wherein the name of the petitioner is shown

at Serial No.14 and in the column of place of posting, it was

mentioned as "disciplinary case is pending". It is relevant to note

Rule 5(b) of State and Subordinate Service Rules, which reads as

under:

2020(6) ALD 472 (TS)

"Non-selection posts:- No non-gazetted post should be treated as selection post. Promotion and appointment by transfer to higher posts other than those mentioned in sub-rule (a) shall be made in accordance with seniority-cum-fitness, unless,

(i) such promotion or appointment by transfer of a member has been withheld as a penalty.

7. A close reading of the above rule, it is clear that promotion to

non-selection post cannot be withheld unless the candidate is

under the currency of punishment. In the instant case, as per the

seniority list of Language Pandits, the petitioner was allowed to

exercise option and accordingly he exercised his option.

8. Admittedly, 8600 Language Pandit posts were upgraded as

School Assistants (Languages) and as per the seniority in the cadre

of Language Pandit (Telugu), petitioner was allowed to exercise his

web option for place of posting in the cadre of School Assistant

(Telugu). Accordingly, petitioner exercised his option on 15.6.2024

and thereafter, respondent No.4 issued proceedings

Rc.No.333/A3/2023 dated 18.6.2024, wherein the name of the

petitioner was at serial No.14, but however, no posting order was

given on the ground that disciplinary case is pending as on that date.

Subsequently, the punishment of "Censure" was imposed on the

petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.4610/A3/2023 dated 2.9.2024,

however, the promotion order dated 18.6.2024 was neither cancelled

nor withdrawn by the respondents.

9. Here, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana 2, in which, it is

categorically held that it is illegal to withhold promotion based on

departmental or criminal proceedings initiated after the date on

which the candidate was considered for promotion. The relevant

excerpt of the said decision is extracted hereunder:

"14. However, the matter as to promotion stands on a different footing and the judgments of the High Court have to be sustained. The sealed cover procedure is now a well- established concept in service jurisprudence. The procedure is adopted when an employee is due for promotion, increment etc. but disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against him and hence the findings as to his entitlement to the service benefit of promotion, increment etc. are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in question are over (see Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman SCC at pp. 114-115 : AIR at p. 2013). As on 1-1-1986 the only proceedings pending against the respondent were the criminal proceedings which ended in acquittal of the respondent wiping out with retrospective effect the adverse consequences, if any, flowing from the pendency thereof. The departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated

(1999) 5 SCC 762

with the delivery of the charge-sheet on 3-12-1991. In the year 1986-87 when the respondent became due for promotion and when the Promotion Committee held its proceedings, there were no departmental enquiry proceedings pending against the respondent. The sealed cover procedure could not have been resorted to nor could the promotion in the year 1986-87 be withheld for the DE proceedings initiated at the fag end of the year 1991. The High Court was therefore right in directing the promotion to be given effect to to which the respondent was found entitled as on 1-1-1986. In the facts and circumstances, the order of punishment made in the year 1995 cannot deprive the respondent of the benefit of the promotion earned on 1-1-

1986."

10. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that as on the

date of promotion on 18.6.2024, petitioner was not under the

currency of punishment and the subsequent punishment order of

"censure" dated 2.9.2024 will operate prospectively only and will not

operate retrospectively and further as per Rule 5(b)(i) of State and

Subordinate Service Rules, the promotion of the petitioner cannot be

withheld. The contention of the learned Government Pleader that in

view of order of punishment "Censure", petitioner will be debarred for

promotion for a period of one year cannot be countenanced as the

punishment order dated 2.9.2024 will operate prospectively only, but

not retrospectively.