S. Shankaraiah v. The State of Telangana

Petition Under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Orders passed in l.A. No 1 ol 2023 in W p. No. 12650 ot 2023 on 28.04.2023. Counset for the petitioner : SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN counsel for the Respondents: AGp FoR The Court made the following ORDER 'ERVI.ES-, / AGp FoR sERVIcES-,r t HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA RI PETIT ON No. 2 o f2 2 o RDER: . Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government pleader for Service_fl and tearned Assistant Government pleader for Service_Iff, appearing on behatf of respondents, 2 h ti er fil d followlno rel ief : e iti n n "... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the Memo.Rc.No.183tBtV/86/2020 dated 08.12.2020 and its consequential orders in Memo.No.1751/AH_7(2)/2020 dated 30.07.2021 issued by the 1't and 2nd respondents wherein rejecting the claim of the petitioner For promotion to the post of Office Superintendent despite having existing vacancies on the ground that criminal cases are pending against him as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and also in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same with a consequential direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regularization suspension period from 12.06.2006 to 11.03.2014 as on duty in terms of the orders passed by the Tribunal where in sefting aside the orders of 2 SN. J wP t2650 2023 suspension in OA No. 3652 of 2007, dated 07.O4.2O70 and to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent on par with others without reference to pendency of criminal cases in C.C.No.34 of 2OI5 (C.C.No. 38 of 2009) and C.C.No.53 of 2015 (C.C.No. 59 of 2007) before the Honbte Speciat Judge for SpE and ACB cases, Karimnagar with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and pass...

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant and was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.06.2006 alleging that the petitioner was involved in tampering of judgments and decrees of Hon'ble Court of A. p relating to compensation of submerged Iands of Lower Maneru Dam, Karimnagar District and a case in Cr.No.3 of 2006 for the offences under Sections l2O_8, 4Lg, 420,466,468, 47r, 477 (A),20t, rcg Ipc and section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 19BB was registered and it was numbered as CC 59 of 2OO7 before the principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached ApAT by filing OA No.3652 of 2007 to quash the suspension orders dated 21.06.2006 and consequentiar orders dated 27.12.2009 and the Tribunar arowed the oA on 07.04.2070 setting aside the said orders and directed I J SN, J wP _126s0:2023 the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service. But the respondents herein approached this Court by filing W.p. No.17069 of 2010 to quash the said order dated 07.o4.2oto and su'bsequently the same was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.09.2022. In the meanwhile the respondents reinstated the petitioner into service. 3 (i). It is the further the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities kept the petitioner under suspension w.e.f. 12.06.2006 to 11.03.2014 i.e. for a period of (7) years and (9) months. In the meantime, the juniors of petitioner were promoted to the post of Office Superintendent in the year 2006 itself. The petitioner submitted a representation to the authorities but the 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent vide memo dated Og.t2.2O2O. The petitioner again submitted a representation to the 1't respondent for promotion without reference to pendency of criminal cases but the 1,t respondent rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 30.07.202L. Thereafter the petitioner submitted another representation dated 23.t2.2o22 to the 1't respondent to consider his craim to regularize the suspension period from 12.06.2006 to 11.03.2014 4 SN, J wP 12650 2023 but the respondents did not consider the same. Aggrieved by the Memo dated 08.12.2020 and consequential orders dated 30.07.2021 issued by the 1'r and 2nd respondents respectively the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not insisting for the prayer insofar as directing the respondents to consider the claim oF the petitioner for regularization of the suspension period from 12.06.2006 to 11.03.2014 as on duty in terms of the orders passed by the Tribunal wherein the orders of suspension had been set aside in O.A. No.3652 of 2007, dated 07.04.2010 and the learned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner submits that the relief in the present writ petition may be confined to the rest of the prayer as prayed in the present writ petition (referred to and extracted above).

5. PERUSED THE RECO RD (A)Th eam Duqned 831 IV 2 o oce din Me mo Roc .No. 2 2 ss ed e I l 5 reSDondenta ddressed to thEDeti to er herein is extra ct d hereunder SN, J \\tP t2650 2023 DTRECToRATE oF .GOVFR NMENT OF TELANGANA 'ETERTNARy a arvlueL riiCe;NDRy H'DERABAD Mem o c.No. 1a3tt BIvt 6t 20 o Sub:-Establishment V&AHD_Sri S.Shankaraia O/o District Veterinary & Animal i;;;;;;; P:_,.,.i. -promotion as Superintendent Regarding a d o -1 o 0 h, Senior Assistant. Officer, Mancheriai post-Requested_ Ref: Representuligi gl Sri S Shankaraiah, Senior Assistant. 0/0. DVAAHo,Mancheriatoi.t.i.i,oui"jiSli6lrozo _--..!. v/vi Whereas, Sri S.Shankaraiah, Senior Asststant, O/o. DV&AHO. Mancheriat District is invited to .;i.,.;;;;"*#".'","n n" nu, represented ror promotion as SuDerintendent and ;;;;;;"rr", al the requisite tests and he is etisibte 11: n.Jri"ti".i'ur"i,IJ"r,n,undent and atso represented that, there are no remarks fro-ri - nigfre, officers and requested to consider for promotion u, S, ferin-t"nO"nt. Whereas, Sri S. _Shankariah, Senior Assistant, O/o. District. "v"r.hli,-ui veterinary & Animal Husbandry on,L, ,,r,.,., is informed that, the Hon'bte Hish court r,;r. tn"-ii"t"'"iilill ; ;. ;; ; ";l# ( s p e c i a I o ri s i n a I : u ris a ; ct i o n ) h "Ji.""T # #ry 1i?i : I the Writ petition No. 9936 or zorg--Jni"i"'rJ"o ,n" orders rhat -i., "consider the case of oe,tioner^ i.e] ,. srnl'n'iu.","n. o/o District ff:::? "JJr:#g:: om.u, u tr,l,.lu i 1o. p.o. otio n to the ", o" " LY.: ""n o " o,-"i[oo#"Jf k ]L3:t:lkariah. Senior Assistant. o/o. Assista nt o i s t ri ct ie t Jii n;;' & il,,IMi: .,?iT li; :J:'r":i,J. J:.1- B,:,i:, "Ji; invotved in a criminat case by F;;;.,"; ii"l'rog;""o and Decrees of Hon'bte A.p. High Court pi"j"ri,,"ilvl".uoua retaring to compensation of submeroed Jqnal of Llrii <..i.rlgar Disrrict. He was *:{ I i i1L ?p ln:' ;l :;,:ii",}H;1"1 ij, *y r, q o o, it o a, i)1-, porice on t2_o6_2oo6 *a p-i,JJ "o"iiJ inJ,"i#,,.;:,"i,rUl}? Metroporitan Magistrate. r'lurpuirv, -ivj"."l'"d' 1"" I 3_06_2006 and rooged in central Jail Chanchaigrai, l-fy,d;rA.i. C"Jnsequent on arrest rn criminat case, rhe ,aia inaiviruii;;;";;;' suspended from ,of ,Andh.-, 6 SN, J wP 12650 2023 "nJ" Government service vide Head Office Proc' Roc' No' t6487lvc/G4lzooo, oateil 2t'6''oo6 i'e from the date of his period is being reviewed detention in police .r,tooylnJf ii "'p"ntion in rorce' He was under ai pe' :;;:;rj;, i"i"-;;ls of (6i ""*'i '.utes IuroJntion for (8) years and (3) months' '""''o;".;;;;;i'i,' ti" h;;'L;;; praced und.er suspension rrom 12.06.2006 i.e., from tn" a*"t" oi his detention In police custody vide p.". Roc. trto. t'oieltvqcqt2006' dated: 21'06'2006 -was Whereas, in the meanwhile' a Radio M es-sag^e received from ACB. $';;;;;;oaa oateo 7't'z-zooo' that on 6-12-2006 simultaneous searches were conduct"i ;; -th" 'residential premises of Sri S' Shankaraiah and his t"futi'"''" Ou'ing the searches it is found that The individual is in possessiot ti Oitp'"p6tt'onate asserts tentatively worth of Rs. 29,05,175 and the n"tt"lO Jffit"' *ut arrested on 6'12'2006 at befoie Principal Special Judoe for ACB cases ; ;M ";i-;;oluced and he-was remanded to Hvderabad for Judicial '";;;i ""7i2'iooo !..la",l'i".r'iiov-tiif zo.rz')o6o- vio" c'o' Ms' No' 27' AH' DD & F (Vioi) Department dated ii 'i'zool ' c"vernment have authorized the I'iB't#'"t#;;;;;i th" p;op"'t'"t or the said individual worth or Rs' "'uu'lli'*nereas the DG' cID' Andhra Pradesh' Hvderabad has informed that an amount of R' 2'7 t'otus were misappropriated by the accused persons accused and charge sneel f'at been filed agalnst Li"i.in" i""'bl6 erinciple Special Judge.for SPE-and ACP cases on 24.g-ZoO7. Sri Shankaraiai it tiii i" she6t has been led this case The DG ACB Hyderabad nu' u r'o'inilii'"u-tnut charge sheet Has been filed aqainst sri s. shankar"it;, ;;;i"; A;iistant' oTo.the Resional Animal Hlsbandry Training c"ntr.", rlu-rirnnungur- in Hon'ble Spl' Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Karimnagar-in'li os zoos vide C'C' No'34 of 2015 and tf'" tur" is pending trial before the Court' -52 Whereas, the individual Sri S shankariah: ?9niot Assistant' O/o Assistant Director(AH), nirjic' xuii'nagar District presently working at O/o Animal Husbandry'OifL' lluntnJrial District has filed O'A'No' iz;ri'r;;i;"t; npai, Hvi"i'uaJ'wrth a praver to re-instate him into Government service viae" i'o' n' rtr"' i4' nnimal Husbandry' Dairy Development a Fisheries iis't j o"p-attmelt' lt-o2-2074 -orders for reinstatement of Sri' S' Government ftu'" i'Jui Shankaraiah. s"niot rcJ''!lu'nt' iot'"'rv. at o/o Regional Animal Husbandry Training Centre-at Karimnagar into service with immediate effect, without prejudice tJ- if'" oittiptinary / criminal proceedings pending against him' . -dated: And whereas, as per the Government orders' the order of suspenslon of the individuui'nut U""n revoked he was re-instated him 7 SN, J rvP t2650 2023 into Government service,with immediate efFect, without prejudice to the disciplinary / criminal -proceedings p""ai"g-'"g- irst the individual vide Head office proc. Roc No_16482-VCiCqtzio,,oi,'ixed: 22-02_20L4. He has reported for dutv on fz_o:_ior+ FN. H;";; reported for duty ?::? 9l?9\1FN. rhus, r," *ar rno"-.'rl.o""r,"i w.e.f. 12_06_2006 to 11-03-2014 i.e.. for a period of (Zl-V!"., l"c (9) months. At present, the case proceedings is stitt penaing;ith il" ACB authorities. Therefore, the representation cited of Sri S. Shankaraiah, Senior Assistant, /o. DV&AHO, Mancherial Oirt.ici i, ur-u,.ined with reference to the case referred above and rejected. or.u.,-"nr,.,?%"JXI; DTRECTOR (V&AH) Sri. S.Shankaraiah. Senior. Assistant through the District Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Officer, Mancherial Oist.iil.''' " Districr Veterinary & animat Hustandry officer, Mancheriat ;i*Li: Vigilance Cell in the Directorate for information and necessary :.",r,J"a Copy to Stock file, spare. (B) The tmD uo L751 AH- L(2 'l/2 o2 r s n n d e extracted hereunder: Dro ceedinqs vide Mem No. dated 30 .o7.2ozl. issued bv the l't 2nd r s nd nth rern ts ANIMAL HUSBANDRY. DAIRY DEVELoPMENi.& ;i;;ERIES DEPARTMEN .GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA Memo No. 1751 /AH-I(2),/2O2O, SUb-AHDD&F Veterinary and interested for Regarding D t ?"?t. - S Shankaraiah, Senior Assistanr llima] Husbandry Office, Mancheriar Oiiirili promotion as Superintendent _ n"q*rtuJ_ 30-o7- 20 1 8 SN, J wP 12650 2023 Ref-1) Rep. of Sri S, Shankaraiah, Senior Assistant O/o DVAHO, Mancherial District, Dt 23.06.ZOZL 2)Govt., Memo 1 75 1/AH -I(2) I 2OZ t, D ated : 02_ 07 _2o2t 3)From DVAH Hyd. Lr. Roc No L831,/BIV /86/2020,dated:17_ 07-2021 With reference to letter 3.d cited, it s informed that the representations dt 14.9.2020 and 19.9.2020 of the individual for consideration of his promotion as Office Superintend post have already been examined earlier with reference to the d isciplina rylCrim ina I Proceedings pending against him & ord ers dt:01.05.2019 of Hon,ble High Court in WP No. 9930/ZO7g and rej ected by the DVAH. Hyd. vide Memo. Roc. No 1831/BIV/86/2O2O Dt. 08.12.2020 holds good and hence reiterated the same is. 2. Therefore, the a ccording ly. DVAH is requested to inform the individual To The Director of Veterinary and Animal Husbandry. Telangana, Hyderabad. (we) ANITA RAJENDRA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT //FORWARDED: : By ORDER// SECTION OFFICER GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA DIRECTORATE OF VETERINARY & ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: HYDERABAD End Roc. No. 8781/ BIV/8,6/ 2027 Dated 23. 08.2027 Com mu n icated Sdl-xxxx Dr.S. Ramchander, Additional Director (V&AH) To Sri S. Shankaraiah, Senior Assistant through District Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Officer, Mancherial. Copy to District Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Officer, Mancherial. Copy to Vigilance Cell in the Directorate for information and necessary action. Copy to Stock file / Spare. , ,,1 I 9 SN, J wP_r2650 202.1 J do ment of (c) The DO rted in( 19 5) 2SCc ntents 70 aman Lal Goval, dat s US Others Vers Darticular a ra Nos.1 1andl 2a h x fP uniab and o 1 1.199 5in a here un der: "11. The principles to be borne in mind in this behatf have been set out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in@ Gss2 (L) s.c.c.22s). Though the said case pertained to criminal prosecution, the principles enunciated therein are broadly applicable to a plea of delay in taking the disciplinary proceedings as we[. In paragraph g6 of the judgment, this court mentioned the propositions emerging from the several decrsions considered therein and observed that ,,ultimately the court has to barance and weigh the severar rerevant Factors - balancing test or barancing process - and determine in each case whether the right to speedy triar has been denied in a given case',. It has also been held that, ordinarily speaking, where the court comes to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of the accused has been infringed, the charges, or the conviction, as the case may be, will be quashed. At the same time, it has been observed that that is not the only course open to the court and that in a given case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances may be such that quashing of the proceedings may not be in the interest of Justice. In such a case, it has been observed, it is open to the court to make such other appropriate order as it finds just and equitable in the circumstance of the case. l0 SN. J wP r26i0 2023

12. Applying the balancing process, we are of the opinion that the quashing of charges and oF the order appointing enquiry officer was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately. Ibis direction is made in the particular facts and circumstances of the case though we are aware that the Rules and practice normally followed in such cases may be different. The promotion so made, if any, pending the enquiry shall, however, be subject to review after the conclusion of the enquiry and in the light of the flndings in the enquiry. It is also directed that the enquiry against the respondent shall be concluded within eight months from today. The respondent shall cooperate in concluding the enquiry. It is obvious that if the respondent does not so cooperate, it shall be open to the enquiry officer to proaeed ex-parte. If the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aforesaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped". (D) Counter affidavit filed on beha lf of resoondents in oart icular oara Nos. 17 a nd 20 are extracted hereu nder: : I I j / II SN, J wP 12650 2023 '17, It is submitted that the suspension period of the petitioner i.e. Sri S. Shankaraiah, s"ri"i nJriririt *.e.r. L2.06.2006 i.e. from the date of a"tu"iio" ;n'"p"o1i.""'.rrtoOy to 11.03.2014 (till his reinstatement into ser-vicei wfrich is .than (7) years has not O"un ."grti rl-u j 'a-r," ',o inclusion of Criminal proceedings ienaing- JJainst tne petitioner in C.c. No. :s orlots="n;-i.;.'r,r":#'t, ,o15 before the Speciat Judge for SpE & ACB aus";;"KI.i.inugu.. 20, It is submitted that, at present, the criminat case. proceedings is stifl pending witfi ih; ion,Ute speciat Judge for spE & AiB ""r"!, i"ii-irigar. The case is pending for the purpose of Defence evidence (Copy enclosed),,. non_ I U I N NDC N U o 6 It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W.p. No.9930/2019 questioning the action of the respondents For denying the petitioner.s promotion as Superintendent while continuing to promote the petitioner,s juniors on the ground ot pendency of criminal case against the petitioner relating to the year 2006. The said writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 01.05.2019 observing as under: "This Court. having considered the rival submissions, ls of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,,. 12 SN, J wP 12650 202-1

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the orders of this Court dated 01.05.2019 passed in W.P. No.993O of 2}tg, the impugned order dated 08.72.2020 and 30.07.2021 have been issued rejecting the request of the petitioner for promotion for the post of Superintendent.

8. The rearned counsel appearing on beharf of the petitioner submits that the reasons indicated in the impugned order dated 08.72.2020 of the 2nd respondent is the pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner and the reason indicated in the impugned order dated 30.07.202L of the 1,r respondent is, by reiterating the proceedings dated 08.12.2020 of the 2nd respondent and holding that the same holds good. The learned counsel further submits that the impugned order passed by the 1't and 2nd r€spondent are contrary to the spirit of the orders of this court dated 01.05.2019 passed in w.p. No. 9930 0f 2079 and the case of the petitioner has to be considered in view of the observations of the Apex Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 in State of punjab and Others Versus Chaman Lal Goyal. dated tn particular para Nos.11 and 12. The learned

30.01. 1995 v , I , t-.t .tr r "-"{t / I F-=- l3 SN, J v,ry t2650 2023 counsel basing on the aforesaid submissions contends that the impugned proceedings dated 08.12.2020 and 30.07.2021 are passed without assigning any reasons, without application of mind and passed mechanically without considering the view of the Apex Court on the subject issue on promotions when the criminal cases are pending against the individuals.

9. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_I and Services-II appearing on behalf of respondents places reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents and in particular para Nos.17 and 20 (referred to and extracted above), and contends that in view of the fact that the criminar proceedings initiated in the year 2007 against the petitioner have not been concluded as on date and in view of the fact that the charges leveled against the petitioner as indicated in the charge sheet are grave in nature, the case of petitioner for promotion as sought for by the petitioner through various representations and the present writ petition cannot be considered. 14

10. Basing on the aforesaid submissions, the learned Assistant Government pleader contends that the writ petition has to be dismissed in timini. SN. J wP 126i0 202i

11. A bare perusal of the record shows that the criminal proceedings vide CC No. 59 of 2OO7 before the principal Special Judge for SpE and ACB cases, Hyderabad, against the petitioner had been pending since the year 2007 and the impugned orders Passed by the 2nd respondent dated 08.12.2020 and the respondent No.1 dated .30.07.2027 indicates that the only ground for rejecting the request of the petitioner for consideration of petitioner,s case for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent is the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 in State of Punjab and Others Versus Chaman Lal Goyal, dated 30.01.1995 in particular para Nos.11 and 12 thereunder, this Court opines that the request of the petitioner for consideration of petitioner,s case for promotion to the post of officer superintendent has to be considered in the light of the observations of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), without reference to the T.-- Wffir"*;=@ l l 1 I ,l i -.1 i .xra*w l5 pendency of the criminal case 2007. SN, J wP_t2650 2023 against the petitioner in the year

72. It is pertinent to note that a perusar of record indicates that the petitioner on earlier occasion also filed O.A. No.3652 of 2OO7 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 07.O4.2OIO by setting aside the proceedings dated 21.72.2009 issued by the Director of Animal and Husbandry, A.p Hyderabad suspending the petitioner vide proceedings dated 21.06.2006 on the ground that Cr.No.3/2006 for the offences under Sections 720-8, 4t9, 420, 466, 468, 47r, 477_A, 2Ot, tog of rpC had been registered against the petitioner and others and that petitioner was arrested on 12.06.2006 at 10.00 p.m., and was in judicial The respondents thereunder in the said O.A. No. 3652 of 2OO7 were further directed vide order dated 07.O4.2OIO to reinstate the petitioner into service within 3 days from the date of receipt oF a copy of this order. The said order dated passed in O.A. No. 3652 of 2OO7 in favour of the petitioner had attained finality and therefore this Court opines that the request of the petitioner for considering the petitioner,s case for promotion to the post of oFfice superintendent shourd

07.04.2010 custody. h t6 be reconsidered in the light of the observations of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), 13. a nI SN. J wP_ 12650_ 202.] (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_f and Services_ ff, appearing on behalf .of respondents, 1a3I/BIV/B.2/ZO2O, (c) The impugned proceedi ngs vide Memo Roc.No. dated O8.I2.2O2O issued by the 2,d respondent addressed to the petitioner herein, (referred to and extracted above), (d) The impugned proceed ings vide Memo No. 17 5 | / AH- t (2) / 2O2O, dated 3O.O7 .2O2t,dated 30.07.2O2 I issued by the l"t respondent addressed to the znd respondent herein (referred to and extracted above), (e) Counter affidavit faled on behalf of respondents tn particular para Nos. 17 andl 2O (referred to and extracted above), d I r r t7 SN, J wP t26s0 2023 (f) The observations of the Apex Court reported in (1995) 2 SCC 57O in State of punjab and Others Versus Chaman Lal Goyal, dated 30.O1.1995 in particular para Nos.ll and 12 (referred to and extracted above), (g)The fact that the criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner since the year 2OO7 and the fact that the accused in criminal case is not guitty unless proven guilty, The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to reconsider the decisions made vide proceedings dated 08.12.2O2O ot the 2nd respondent and reconsider the said proceedings dated 3O.O7.2O21 of the 1't respondent and reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Office Subordinate duly taking into consideration the observations made by the Apex Court in State of punjab and Others Versus Chaman Lal Goyal, (referred to and extracted above), and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner on the subject issue to the petitioner, I I l8 SN, J wP-r2650 2021 It is however observed that the respondents in the event of consideration of petitioner,s case for promotion can however indicate specifically that the same is subject to the outcome of the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. 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/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE ON OFFICER To '1 . The Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Director of Animal Husbandry, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Director (AH), Regional Animal Husbandry Training Center, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|||, High Court for the State of Telangana at

5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Courf forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. One CC to SRI V.RAVICHANDRAN, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies SA PVL HIGH COURT DATED:29l\4t2\2s ORDER WP.No.12650 of 2023 IHE S TA Rt'J a * ;ll 1 s AUE 2025 '-v -z * PA DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \) ---.- l I ! I 1