The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitio4er: SRI RUDBESH QESHpANeE Counsel fof the RgFpondqnts: cp FOR HQMF The Court made the following: ORpER HON,BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA R P T o N 9 9 F ORDER: Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande' learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home' appearing on behalf of the resPondents. 2 h Drav rasu nder: r h h c s n "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not granting Notional Promotion to the Petitioner in the cadre of Deputy SuferintenOent of Police (Civil) w'e'f' 11'07'2003 illegal arbitrary and u nconstitution a I .onrelrJntty direct the respondents to grant the --oit;;, Promotion to the Petitioner in the cadre of ,"pr,, Superintendent of Police (Civil) w'e'f' 1l'.07.2003, by duly taking into the consideration of a",,". addressed by the 4th respondent to the i;*;;tp"-n1l;a 4th resPondent to the. 2nd Iespondent vide C'No'184/EU2011 dated rO-.'OS.zorr in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in W'P'No'12741 of 2Ol3 Jated Of.fZ.2O22 and re-fix his pay and other uffo*un."t attached to the post with all Ionr"qr"n,'ul benefits including monetary benefits I \ I 2 SN,., W.P.No.98l.9 of 2023 and pass such other order or orders may deem fii arrd prrtrer in the circumstances of the case.,, \

3. l'he ,:ase of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner yras appointed as Sub Inspector of police (Civil) on 14.09.7')78 and promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police on 30 08.1991. After serving for nearly 30 yeerrs, the petitioner lertired from service on attaining the age of superanrruation on 30.04.2008. However, durirrg his service, a f.alse complaint was filed by his wife, lea,ling to department,ll proceedings being initiated against hirn. The petitioner w;rs denied promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police (DS;P) due to the said proceedings. despiter being eligible and qualified for the promotion. The petitioner was acquitted cf the charges in the year 2007, arrd the departmental proceedings were dropped in the year 2010. However, . cktspite petitioner's acquittal, the petitioner's promotion tl DSP Post was not considered, and petitioner retired irr th3 year 2008 without getting promotior.l. The petitioner submitted several representations to the respondent authorities, seeking notional promotion to DSp. However, nc action had been taken on the same. Aggrieved by the s;ame, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. I i I 3 SN,' w.P.No.9a19 0t 2023 PERUSED THE RECORD: The letter of A 16.09.2O11 vide C.No.184/ ELlzOtL addressed o the the resDo ndent No.4 resDondent No.2 erein is extracted hereu nder: "With reference to the subject cited, it is to submit that, Sri G. Narsaiah, Inspector of Police, (Retd.) was appointed as S.I. of Police on 14-09- 1978 and promoted to the rank of Inspector of Police on 30-08-1991. While he working as Inspector of Police, Hasanparthy circle a complalnt was filed against him on 08-11-2002 by his wife Smt. G. Swaroopa Rani at Hanamkonda P'S, stating that he developed illegal contacts with one Ireddy Bhagya Laxmi, W/o. Late Narsimha Reddy, resident of Hanamkonda, due to which his wife were strained and he harassed his wife mentally and physically and also beat her on several occasions. Later he purchased a House No.2-4- 1456,.Gandhinagar, Ashoka Colony, Hanamkonda and married the said I. Bhagya Laxmi as second wife and kept her in the said house along with her 1't wife and gave birth to 2 male children ' on which, a case in Cr.No.374/02, U/s. 498-A, 494 IPC was registered at Hanamkonda P.S against Sri G. Narsaiah, Inspector. SubsequentlY as Per Chief Office Proceedings Rc.No.1137lAppeal/02, dt 28-11-02 4 sN,J W.P.No.9a19 of 2O23 anll this office Memo C.No. 3BlC/02, dt: 29-Ll-02 he vrras rlaced under suspension vide Order C.No. 463r'./ A5 / 02, (D.O. No. 3390 / 02), dt:30 - 1 I -2002 of Supdt. rf Police, Warangal and released from suspen:;ion as per Chief Office Procdgs.No.1137l Appe:al-1/02, dt: 03-01-2003 without prejudice to the pencing O.E. against him vide this office Menro C.Nc.3[i7'Cl02, dt: 7-01-2003. :lrther it is to submit that, Sri G. Narsaiah, Inspect lr of Police (Retired) filed an O.l\.No,(;453/05 in Honourable APAT Hyderabad requesting to direct the respondents to stay the further proceedings in the departmental enquiry till the corrpletion of trial of criminal case in Cr.N't.3 t 4/02, U/s 498(A), 494 IPC of Hanamlurnda PS registered against him. The Honounr5le A.P.AT Hyderabad have issued interim orcle-s rlt: 08-11-05 and directed the respondents to rnaintain status quo with respect to the disciplir;rry proceedings as obtained that day, pending further orders. However a counter has bec,n filed in the Honourable APAT Hyderabad fr:r dismissic,n the above O.A. vide this office Letter C.llo.3t/C/2003, dt: 23-11-2005. Again the applicant has filed another petition vicle O.l\.No,8172107 in APAT Hyderabad requested to stay ;r I further proceedings initiated ,n Departnrental Proceedings in C.No. 3B/C/03, dl: 5 SN,J W.P.No.ga19 of 2023 29-Ol-O4. The Honourable APAT has issued interim relief order dt: 3L-L2-20O7 directing the respondents to stay all further: proceedings initiated departmental proceeding No. 38/C/2003, dt: 29-01-2004 on the file of the 1st Respondent i..e. DIG of Police, WR, Warangal. However, the Enquiry Officer i.e. Addl.S.P. (Admn.) Warangal was requested to get stay vacated against the Honorable APAT Order dt: 31- t2-07 in O.A.No.8172107 and complete the O.E. against Sri G. Narsaiah, Inspector of Police, (Retired) vide this office Memorandum C.No.38/C/2003, dt: 22-2-2OlO. Meantime the Honourable APAT Hyderabad has passed an order dt: 28-04-2010 in O.A.No.8772/2007 as follows: "Had there been any acquittal whether it is a clean acquittal or acquittal on given benefit of doubt the decision would have been difFerent. But in the present case the applicant was not discharged at the time of framing of the charge but subsequently the applicant was discharged bY the Criminal Court for the offences under Section 494 and 498 (A). Therefore, after going through the entire record, I am of view that no cause of action survives on the same set of facts against the applicant regarding the cruelty and bigamY. Therefore, the charge memo dated 29-O|-2OO4 is quashed. The OA is accordingly disposed off. No Costs." 6 sN., W.P.No.98r.9 of 2023 I n view of above Hon'ble ApAT Order dt.zlg- 04.-;U 0t 0 in OA No.B172/07, a clarification t,as been siought from Chief Office vide merno Rc.ltlo. t916/4ppel-l/2OtO, dated 06.-07-20t0 and as per :he directions of the Chief Office and the G.P. for Home (S), High Court of A.P. Hyderabad vide letter No.OA.No.8172/07lSer.t/pNR, dtd 24- 09-il0l[r opinioned that the sum and substance of thr-' allrlrlation is marrying for second time durirg the sullsistence of first marriage. The individLral was pr()ceeded against U/s 494 & 498 (A) of IpC. He was acquitted of the charge on both counts ly Compell)nt Criminal Courts. The subject of all:gaticn in the Criminal Court and domestic en,quiry is one and the same moreover is not relating to employment proper but incidental to l-ris status as employer. In view of the principle laid fl6r1's1 lr1, Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of G.l,l.Tarr< Vs State of Gujarat repofted in (2006) 5 SCC 4.16 the disciplinary action may not t)e continur:C as held by Hon'ble Tribunal. Therefore he opin,:d that this is not a fit case for the State to prc,secut3 the matter further. As such, in view implementation of APAT Order dt.2B-O4-2O1O in O.A.No,8172/2OO7 fited by Sri G.Narsaiah, Inspector of Police (Retd), Warangal district and as per Chief Office directions, opinion of the Gorrt. Pleader for Services-I, High Court of I 7 sN,l W.P.No,9a19 of 2023 AP, Hyderabad the further action against Sri G.Narsaiah, Inspector of Police, (Retired), Warangal district inatiated vide the articles of charge memo in C.No.38/C/2O93, dated 29- O1-O4 of DIG of Police, Warangal Range, Warangal is dropped vide this office Proc. No.56412010, dt.O5-1O-20 1O. Further it is to submit that during the period from 2002 to 2008 when he was facing OE the promotion proposals for CIs fit to act as DSsp were sent to C.O. stating that he is facing OE and due to which his case was not recommended for promotion as DSP and his next juniors were promoted. But, in the meantime, Sri G.Narsaiah, Inspector of Police was retired from service on superannuation pension w.e.f.30-05-2008. Now the above Retired Inspector is requesting to issue promotion orders as DSP notionally on par with his juniors as per the G.O.Ms.No.424, Genl.Admn.Ser.C, Dept., dt.25- 05-1976 as the allegations leveled against him was completely exonerated. The relevant documents are enclosed for ready reference. " 5 Th e rel ant oortion of G.O.Ms.No -424 General tce .c De n

25.O5 .1976 is ext racted h ereu nder: t: E t 8 sN,J W,P,No.98J.9 of 2023 '-.' ,l "Gcverrnment have carefully considered t.he existinr; Instructions regarding consideration of 'the claims br promotion of officers who are facing enquirl, in any departmental proceedings or before a Clrinr nal Court or whose conduct is uncler investirJ,ation and against whom Departmental pr,)cee(iings or Criminal Prosecution is about to be ins;tituted, and have decided that the following prr:cedure shall be followed in such cases.

2. Offir:ers who are facing enquiry, trial or In\/esti(J,l tion can be categorised into the followirg groups based on the nature of allr:gaticns/charges pending against them or about to be in s tituted. i) an officer with a clean record, the nal:ure of cha rges/allegations against whcm relate to minor lapses having no beir -ing on his integrity or efficiency, wh ir:h even if held proved, would not stard in the way of his being promoted. ii) ;r r officer whose record is such that he wo lld not be promoted, irrespective of lhe allegations/charges under enquiry, 'iria I or investigation; and rliii) an officer whose record is such that he rarould have been promoted had he not bee rr facing enquiry, trial or investigation, 9 5N,J W.P.No.9819 of 2023 In respect of charges which, if held proved, would be sufflcient to supersede him.

3. The suitability of all officers eligible for promotion including those mentioned above should be assessed at the time of consideration of promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee or other authority, as the case may be' The Departmental Promotion Committee or other authority may consider promotion of officers coming under category (1) above and indicate the rank to be assigned to such officers in the promotion list, notwithstanding the enquiry, trail or investigation. Similarly, supersession may be recommended straightway in respect of officers coming under category (ii), on ground of their being unFit for promotion. In the case of officers coming under category (iii) the Departmental Promotion Committee or other authority should consider whether such an officer would have been recommended for promotion, if the officer had his conduct not been under enquiry trial or investigation, and make Its recommendations and the rank to be assigned to him in the promotion list. In such cases the Departmental Promotion Committee may make a specific recommendation that their promotion should be deferred until after the termination of the disciplinary proceedings or criminal prosecution. 10 SN,J W.P.No.9819 of 2023

4. In the event of there being an officer whose promc tion has been recommended to be deferred, the vi),:ancy that could have gone to the officer shoulcl be filled only on a purely temporary b,lsis by tt- r: next person in the approved list of c,arrdiclates for promotion. If the officer concerned is; conrpletely exonerated he should be promoted to the por;t filled on a temporary basis, restoring rim his ricylrtful place in the list of promoted offir:ers \ rith r:trospective effect.

5. In cases where an officer is under suspe rsion pending enquiry, Investigation or trial tlre prc,visional withholding of promotions woulct be justifir:J and the instructions issued in Ci.O.Ms;.No.790, General Administration (Ser''C), dated ,19-9-1970 would continue to apply.

6. This order issues in supersession of the order issued In G.O.Ms.No.211, General A,dministration (Service-C) Department dated 31- 3-1.97:;."

6. thc__ releva nt oortion of the iudomen Q.!1Q?-292-2 in W.P.No.12741 of 2O13 is extracted hereunde r: "In view of above, by following the orclers pa:;seC by the Division Bench of this Court in \ffrit A,ppezl Nos.1724 & 1915 of 2017, which was 11 SN,J W.P.No.9819 of 2(!23 disposed of by this Court vide order 12.11.2018, the present Writ Petition deserves to be disposed of on similar lines. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. " 7 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Petitioner vide detailed representations the Director General of dated 20.07.2022, addressed to Police, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad i'€', respondent No.2 herein, requested to consider .the petitioner's case for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the panel of C.I.'s fit to act as D.S.P. prepared for the year 2004, if not at least 2006-07, on par with petitioner's juniors with retrospective effect, with all pension and service monetary benefits. The petitioner, again, vide letter dated 02.08.2022, reminded p.etitioner's request for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police on par with petitioner's juniors.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the petitioner's request for notional Promotlon to the Post of DSP (CIVIL) was indicated in the letter addressed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, ia\r - -.._ L2 st{,J W.P.No.98r.9 of 2023 Warangal, to the Director General of Police, A.P., H'yderabad vide C.Nc.lB /El/2Olt dated 16.09.2011 which duly referreC trr petitioner's request to issue.promotion rtrders as Deputy Superintendent of Police on par with p€,titioner's juniors esi per G.O.Ms.No.424 General Administration (Services.C)) Department, dated 25.05.1976 since the petitioner had been exonerated from all the allegations levelerd aclainst him. However, the respondents herrein had not taken any action to grant the notional promotion to the petitiorer in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police with r:fferr:t from lL.O7.2OO3 by duly taking into consideratirln the letter addressed by respondent No.4 to the resprondent No.2 vide C.No.184/E 1/11 dated r6.09.r:011.

9. L,-.arred Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf oi t:he respondents submits that the writ petition could be clisposed of directing the respondents to consider the grierva nce of the petitioner as put forth vide pe:itioner's representations dated 23.03.2011, 20.O7.2Or'.2 and

02.08.2022. 1(}. la-ting-totslgrsldgagrsni 13 SN,I w.P.No.9819 of 2023 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petit'oner and the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The contents of the Pet'tioner's representations dated 23'O}'2OLL, 2O'O7'2fJ22 and O2.OA.2O22 addressed to the respondents herein' which admittedly had not been considered as on date' d) The Order of this Court dated O1"O2'2O22 passed in W.P.No.1274t of 2()13, e) The contents of the letter addressed by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No'2 vide c.No.184r'E1 lZoLL, dated 16'09'2011 (referred to and extracted above), f) G.O.Ms.No.424 General Administration (Services.C) Department dated 25'05 'L976' referred to and extracted above and the instructions thereunder which provides for consideration of the 1,4 SN,J W.P.No.9819 of 2023 claams for promotion of Officers who are facing enquiry in ;rny departmental proceedings, The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the petitioner,s representations dated Z7.O3.2OLI-, 20.O7.2O22 and O2.OA.2O22 addressed to the respondents herein seeking grant of notional promotion to the petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of police on par with his juniors as on 11.O7.2OO3 as ,per G.O.Ms.No,424, Genera! Administration (Services.C), Department dated 25.05.1976 (referred to and extracted above) and for refixation of petitioner,s pay and allowances and pass appropriate orders on said representations of the petitioner in accordance to law within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by duly taking into consideration the letter addressed by the respondent No.4 to the: respondent No.2 vide C.No.1g4/Et/ZOLL, dated 16.O9.2O11 (referred to and extracted above) in terms of the judgment of the High Court dated OL-O2.2O22 passed in W.p.No.1274L ot 2O13 (reterred to and extracted above) which clearly held that Rule I ,t I I t i 15 sN,l W.P.No.9819 of 2023 16(h) of the Rules of 1996, has to be strictly adhered to by the Respondents while effecting Promotions and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs' ' As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGIST //TRUE COPY// Telangand, HYderabad' SECTION OFFICER To. .,. 't. The Principal Secretary' Home Department' Secretariat Building' The state of ' . 2. The Director Generatt"f Police' State of Telangana Hvderabad 3. The lnspecto, c"n"'uioiE;ft'":L;;"il oro"er lli IGP' North zone' . iil3"J3Bitt lnspector General of Police'.warangql!a1'se' warangal' i o"L cii"'sri iiudresi-Deshpande Advocate toPUCl - d. i,iJI dd ii r,iii cc r";'H;;;:-H,sh court for the stale of Telansana' at HvderabadlOUTI Z. Two CD CoPies TJ BS HIGH COURT DATED:191031?-025 ORDER WP.No.9819 of 2023 ('lft 1 Hr Sr4 ( o o 1E Ai,R zIE c a)n t a t r,11 -\ -:: =

11.1rF-o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COS'rS I0 \b