The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l&2: SRI KOYA PRABHAKAR REDDY SC FOR NIMS Counsel for the Respondent NO.3: GP FOR MEDICAL, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE The Court made the following: ORDER (\t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 2664 OF 2OLa ORDER: The case of Petitioner is that he was initially appointed as Securiry Officer on permanent basis with effect from 04,04.1990 and was upgraded as Senior Security Officer uide order dated 15.O3.20O2 with effect from 04.O4.7997. Whlle so, on 03.06.2009, Respondent No. I Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) imposed a punishment of reduction to lou,er rank as Securi[r Officer. Thereafter, the said punishment was modilied to thit of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative eflect. Subsequently, the Executive Board of NIMS passed Resolution No.1390 dated

24.11.2OL4 considering the case of Petitioner for promotion to Chief Security Ofhcer and the same was also followed in the Executive Board meeting dated t 1 . 10.20 15, wherein the previously stopped annual grade increment was treated as period of suspension as on duty urde Resolution No.1437 dated

10. 11.2015. In view of modification of the order as mentioned supra, [he status of Petitioner was reverted to the original status. Thereby, from 03.06.2009 onwards, it needs to be treated that no punishment was imposed against Petitioner. As such, he is entitled for promotion to the post of Chief Securiqr \ \ t I r I l , i I I I I 2 ^- 1 \ -I Officer with eflect from 03.06.2009 and more so, in view of the clear vacancy existing from 01.09.2012. In view of the same, petitioner made representation to Respondent No.2 on

09.O7.2014 and2l.O7.2O15 to the Hon'ble Minister of the State. There being no response, he filed Writ Petition No. 5750 of 2Ol7 for consideration of his case for promotion with effect from

31.08.2012. This Court uide ir.terirn order dated 22.O2.2O2O directed NIMS to consider the case of Petrtioner. Since the said direction was not complied with, Petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 1120 ot 2017 , u.hich was closed on 06.07.2017 accepting the apologies given on behalf of NIMS. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 - NIMS passed order dated 06.O7.2017 rejecting petitioner's request lor promotion. Challenging the said rejection order, the present Writ Petition was filed.

2. Rcsponden[s I and 2 filed counter rebutting the averments madc in the Writ Affidavit, contending that Respondent No. L NIMS awarded a major punishment on Petitioner and subsequently the said punishment was modified to that of sloppage of annual increment without cumulative effect. Petitioner appealed against the said punishment to the Executive Board, which had restored the two annual grade increments and treated suspension period as 'on duty'. However, the said modihcation of punishment as mentioned J l supra does not mean that no punishment is irnposed on Petitioner in the eye of law. Hence, he is not entitled for promotion to the post of Chief Securify Officer with elfect from

03.06.2009. It is stated, the Contempt Case hled by Petitioner rvas closed. Thereafter, Respondent No.l constituted Deparlmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to examine the case of Petitioner for promotion and accordingly, the DPC convened a meeting on 03.03.20 17, as per the interim order/direction in Writ Petition No.5750 of 2077 and having thoroughly examined thc confldcntial reports of Petitioner, DPC had proceeded in fair, impartial and reasonable manner and rejected the claim of Petitioner for promotion as Chief Security Officer. It is the further case of Respondent No. 1 that it had imposed punishment on Petitioner by demoting him to lower rank from Senior Security officer to Securily Officer, after taking inlo consideration his mistake, dereliction of official duties, elcetera. Petitioner was not performing his duties properly and number of complaints were reported against him one after the other to Respondent No.2 which includes a complaint dated

14.09.2076 by Dr. N. Rakesh with regard to non submission of invoices and other details regarding the missing items pertaining to theft case uide FIR No.175 of 2012 of Bibinagar Pqlice Station and another complaint Iodged by Dr. P.S.Rakesh I I I t 4 1 I I Prabhu dated 08. i 1.2016 for dereliction of duty by Petitioner and not solving the parking issues in the campus. That apart, a serious complaint had been lodged by Mr. K.T. Reddy, Deputy Director of Respondent No- 1 against PetiLioner for threatening his life. Taking into consideration all these aspects, DpC had rejected the claim of Petitioner. At this stage, it needs to be seen that the allegation of dereliction, todging of complaints and not cooperating with the managemcnt of Respondent No. 1 and in resolving its issues, on the face of the record are nor disputed by Petitioner by way of reply to the counter-afhdavit filed on behalf of Respondent No.1. The contenLs of Departmental promotion Committee report is a crucial document for adjudication of this Writ. The Departmental Promolion Committee minutes rejecting the claim of the Petitioner is extracted hereunder: - " The Committee perused the records and confidential reports- The Controlling Authoritl observcd in the confidential reports that the incumbent \4'as not punctual in his duties and enclosed three complaints against the said incumbent by the Hospital Administrators rcgarding dereliction of duties in complying to the queries made by the Police, Bibinagar in a theft case. He also failed to control the traffic inside the premises of the institute and failed to resolve the vehicle parking issues in the Institute- The Senior Security Ofhcer failed to follow the dress code of the Institute as prescribed- He more often rvore crvil dress $hile he was on duty, in spite of repeated instructions by the Administration he never bothered to follow the in strucr ion s. \ I ) The persons who holds the post of Chief Security Officer must have basic principles of discipline, punctuality, ability to control the lalv and order in the [nstitute and behave in a obediently manner to the highcr authorities of the Institute. Uased on the remarks of the Controlling Authority in the Confidcntial Reports and complaints made by the Hospital Administralion against the incumbent, the committee felt that the incumbent is not up to the mark to hold the post o[ the Chief Security Officer in the best interest of the Institute." Petitioner had not put-forth any rebuttal to the averments madc in the counter-affidavit hled by Respondent No. 1 and the minutes of Drc, thereby this Court considers the silence maintained by Petitioner on the contents of the counter and the minutes of DPC remains unchallenged and as a consequence, are considered to be true to the incidents that are mentioned therein.

3. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri K. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for NIMS and learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare.

4. From the contents of the impugned order and in view of thc silence maintained by Petitioner on the averments made in the counter afhdavit flrled on behalf of the Respondent No. I and the incidents ancl allegations made against Petitioner ) t I I I I I I I t 6 in the report of DPC, this Court considers them to be serious in nature.

5. The only point that is pressed in the course of the Frguments made on behali of Petitioner is that since punishment was set-aside by the Executive Board of NIMS uide Resoiution No. 1437 and thereby, Petitioner is eligible for promotion is not convincing to this Court to interfere with the impugned order. 6 Downgrading Petitioner from the post of Senior Security Olficer to that of Sccuriry Olficer urde procccd ings dated 03.06.2OO9 though subsequently, the said status of Petitioner was reverted yide Resolu[ion No. 1437 cannot be a ground for Petitioner to makc a demand for promotion as Chief Security Ofhcer, more so when there is no rebuttal to DPC minutes which is part of the record in the Writ Petition. This Court considers the same as unchallenged by Petitioner and the contents of the said DPC minules are true and correct. The impugned order is based on DPC rcport/minutes, as such rejection of demand of Petitioner for promotion is valid and on good grounds. DPC had made an overall assessment of al1 the relevant confidential reports and there was clear application of mind and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings 1 \ 7 and contents of the impugned order and so also DpC report/minutes.

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition lails and rejection order of Respondent No. 1 NIMS is confirmed.

8. costs.

9. In the result, rhe Writ petition is dismissed. No Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed_ To, SD/- S MALLIKARJUNA RAO ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 2 One CC to SRl. P V RAMANA Advocate TOPUC\ One CC to SRl. KOYA PRABHAKAR REDDY SC oR NrMS [OPUC] 4 KKS BM Two CCs to GP FOR I/EDICAL, HEALTH AND FAI\/|LY WELFARE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies y. I I I I ( HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 ORDER os 1! l5 S14t 6 ( ) 3" 1t ruE m! .\ ( WP.No.2664 ot 2018 Dp ,,f.rl_ s DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 1A $