High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Line men to Lince lnspector on the ground of cc No l 112023 is pending on the file of the lst Additional Special Judge for sPE and ACB cases at, Hyderabad is illegal, arbitrary and violation of ApsEB Service Regulations under 3(b)(i) and go.ms no 2sz dt 10-6-1999, consequenfly direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Line men to Line lnspector without reference cc No 11t2023 on the file of court of the lst Additional special Judge for spE and ACB cases at, Hyderabad in the interest of Justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under llection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supoort of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Line men to Line lnspector without reference to CC No 1112023 on the file of Court of the lst Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases at, Hyderabad in the interest of Justice, pending the disposal of the above WP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL The Court made the following: ORDER 7 n THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESTIWAR RAO WRTT PETITI N No. 3222 oF2 25 ORDER Heard Sri R. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, Counsel for TSSpDCL, for respondent Nos.2 to material on record. Services-II for learned Standing

5. Perused the 2' Learned counser for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Lineman on 03.10.2008 and was subsequently promoted as an Assistant Lineman and further to Lineman on 01.05.2016, and was posted at pedda Amberpet, Ranga Reddy District. Whrle serving as a Lineman, the petitioner was apprehended Dy ACB officials on 27.01.2018, FIR, No.01/RCT_ RRR/2018, was registered, and the charge-sheet !/as filed. The petitioner was praced under suspension by the Divisionar Engineer (Electrical Operative Division), Saroornagar, vide Memo dated 02.02.2018. The ACB case remains pending, and no departmental inquiry has been rnitiated as on filing of the present writ petition.

3. Learned counser for the petitloner further submits that the seniority of the petitioner in ihe Linemen cadre was updated by the department and t1e final seniority list was issued on 21.09.20L9, wherein the oetitroner was placed at Sl.No.5 ancl the arrthorities have given prorncrtion at Sl.Nos.6 to 9 as Line Irspector and the petitioner was rcinstated into the services victe It4enro dated

04.11.2019. A,rothei- seniority list was updated and issued on

01.06.2020, in n,hich the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.3. Despite being reinstated into service on 04.11.20t9, the petitioner was not considered for prrrmotion to the post of Line Inspector. The seniority list of Lineme rr cadre aqain prepared in the cadrc: of Lin 3men on

01.06.2020 issu,ld Dy respcndent No.5, but the petiticner was shown at Sl.No.3, bui the respondents have considered the cases of the Sl.No-4, 5 and 6, due to charges pending against the p3titioner. In the said circ-lrrstances, the petitioner made a representation to the authoritie:; tt 27.4!.2025 requesting for promotion to the post of Line Inspeclo r 4, Learned Slanciing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents subn,its that charges are still pending be[ore the authority. He brciuEht to the notice 01- this Court that, as per the Classification or (lo.1.rol and Appeal Rules, the Appointing l\uthority should conside,. ; rd decide that it would not be agains;t public interest to allcu, a,:r- hoc oromotion to the Officer- concerned and this shall be decidecl '/v th reierence to the charge under enquiry. If the charge is one of Lroral turpitude, m isa ppropriation, embe;:zlement ar' r' - t \ J and grave dereliction of duty, then the appointing authority should consider as not in the public interest to consider ad-hoc promotion to such Charged Officer. However, if the charge is not a grave one, but is a minor one, not involving moral turpitude, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty, then only in such cases the Appointing Authority should consider that it would not be against public interest to allow ad-hoc promotion because till then his record is clean with reference to ACRs, past punishment and reputation in the Department as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and Secretary to Government. The Appointing Authorities should strive to finalise the disciplinary cases pursuing them vigorously so that within two years the proceedings are concluded and final orders issued.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.794 of 2024, wherein it is stated that it is always open for the appellants to consider the case of the respondent No.1 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 and as per the said TSSpDCL Regulations, and the same is not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

6. In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of, I I 4 directing the res.po I dent authorities to consider the petil.ioner's representationdali'',l2T.Oi.2025andpassappropriateorrlersin accordance with l;rrrr, within a period of four (4) weeks fr()m the date of receipt i)[ "" ]opy of this order. There shall be no ordt:r as to costs. As a seque,, misceilaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, sla'l s,and closed' SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI NT REGISTRAR AS I //TRUE COPY// SECTION brncen The Prl. Secretary, Energy Department' Secretariat' Hyderabad' :State of it+pnd}t'1*,#i{*ffiiffir.'.tetrI#r ,iifi,"_", ffi+r*tr+s+mu$*'mtffi***: B*"St?Sth?Rl*r.o*o* REDDY' sc FoR rssPDcL toPUCl Two CD CoPies To \

5. 6 7

8. o PSK. BS $ HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 ORDER WP.No.3222 of 2025 E :F.A I€ q 2 B tt) roh C t a (:t S or,TCB I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^K E l