Ch. Chennaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in considering thecase of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) and Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre), on par with his batch mateSriP.Karunakar,despitebeingfullyeligibleandseniortohim,asbeing illegal, discriminatory, manifestly arbitrary, in violation Articles 14 and 19 of Constitution of lndia. IA NO: 10F 2025 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 direct the Respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner daled 10.o1 .2025 in reference to Memorandum Rc.No.886/G 412017 , dated 29.09.201 7 issued by the DirectorGeneralofPolice,TelanganaState,Hyderabad,andtakeadecision within a time frame that may be set by this Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER o HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No. 12829 OF 2o25 ORDER: . Inaction of respondents in considering the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) and Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) on par with his batchmate Sri P' Karunakar is questioned in this Writ Petition. Petitioner claims to be a Deputy Superintendent of 2. Police (direct recruitee) of 20 1O Batch and belonging to Scheduled Castes community. While working at Police Training Centre, Khammam, he was stated to be placed under suspension, on false and frivolous allegations with effect from

08.02.2018 to 19.O7.2019 (later suspension period was treated as on dutlz uide G.O.Rt.No. 1641, dated 18'08'2O23) On reinstatement, he was posted as DSP' CID and presently discharging his services as such' While so, based on the allegations levelled by one realtor, the 2'd respondent - Director General of Police' Telangana issued Memorandum d'ated' 29 09 '2017 initiating departmental proceedings which culminated in drawing a 2 lrnding exonerating him of the alleged charge uide Cl .O.Rt.No. 1641, dated 18.08.2023 and treating his suspension period as on dr rlv It is stated, uide G.O.Ms.No. 34, datcd 23.O2.2O21, the Govern ment of Telangana published a list o I Deputy Superintendt:nts of Police ht for promotion as l'idditional Superintendr:nts of Police (Non-cadre) and also as Superintend e:nts of Police (Non-cadre) and his name igured at S1.No.2 for the panel year 2015-16 clearly establis;hing his eligibility irn,1 seniorily for the said promotion, ho,,r eve r, his immediate junior Sri -P. Karunakar was consic ered for promotion tc the post of Additional Superintendent of police (Non-cadre) in the panel year 2Ol8-19 and Iater as Superinter':Ldent of Police (Non-cadre). A.ccording to petitioner, a complaint mzide by a private inciivjdual, who could not obiain favourable rrders in civil disputdsi and against whom FIRs. have been registered under his instructions, lead to initiation of depz,rtmental proceedings and Cr.No. 6 was registered by AC13 u,hich culminated in hling charge sheet, however, no chi.Lrge was framed in l-he said criminal case and discharge petition as well 1\ o as quash petition filed by him i'e' Crl'P'No 6264 of 2023 is pending before this Court ln view of the above' it is stated' iminal charges petitioner is not facing any departmental nor' crr that would bar his promotion Petitioner therefore' submitted detailed representations dated 05'09'2023 and lO Oi'2O25' but his case was not considered' Learned counsel for petitioner Sri K' Kiran Kumar 3. cites the cases of Sri G Narsimha Reddy' Additional Superintendent of Police and Smt' A' Madhavi Latha' Inspector of Police who were denied promotions on the ground of ACB cases. Both the said officers therefore' filed Writ Petitions No' 45490 of 2022 arrd 21147 of 2023 wherein this Court directed the authorities to consider their case fot ad hoc promotion withoutreferencetothependingcriminalcases,basedon G.O.Ms.No. 257, dated 10'06' 1999 which provides for effecting promotion in. spite of pendency of disciplinary cases against the emploYees conberned 4 Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader lbr Home on behalf of resPondents' The grievance of petitioner is that though his name 5. was hgured at S1'No'2 for the panel year 2O15-16 in Annexure-ll 4 FI appended to G.O.Ms.No. 34, dated 23.03.2021 and thc,ugh there were no ad'rerse remarks against him during the relevalt period, for ihe reasons best known to the authoritie,;, he was not grante,C 1>romotion. Had he been promoted in the lranel yeai 2Ol5- 16, based on seniority, he would have natur ally been promotecl as Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) prior to Sri P.Karunakar during the panel year 2018-19 durirrg which period, petilioner was kept under suspension.

6. I n this connection, learned counsel drarvs attention of this Collrt to the order passed by this Court rn Writ petition No. 4549O rl 2022. In the said case also, petitioner was kept under suspension and in view thereof, his case was not considered frrr promotiononpar wih his juniors. Howeve:, in view of the lavr laid down in A. Jalander Red.dg a, State o.f Telanganal and State of A.P. v. N. Sho;nkor prasad2 this Court held t h at whenever respondents are effecting pr:tmotions to the post of Superintendent of police (NC) in future, it' there is no charge tremo or charge sheet pending against petitioner, he ' zot't 1t1 eLl t2:; ' w.p.No. ,r3 I5 ot li)19, dated 23.oL.zozo Of High (trurt of.\,1dhra Pradesh : 7 5 I I is eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Polcie (NC). In Writ Petiti'on No' 21147 of 2023 also' this Court 7 . in similar circumstances, relying on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Harish Kundr Shanno' IFS v' State of Punjab (Civil Appeal No' ll23l-11232 of 2016)' directed respondents therein to consider the case of petitioner for od hoc promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police without reference to the criminal case pending against him' In the light of the same, since departmental enquiry 8. initiated against petitioner was culminated in exonerating him ald also the ACts case culminated in ltling charge sheet wherein no charges have been framed and discharge petition and quash petition in Crl.P.No' 6264 of 2023 is pending before this Court' the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) and thereafter' as Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) without reference to the criminal case, pending against him' It is made clear' promotion' however, is subject to the result of criminal / ACB cases and departmental cases, if any' No costs' 6

9. Consequently, miscellaneous Applicatior-rs, if any e shall stand closed. I I To //TRUE COPY// SD/. RBP V. HARI PRASAD Ury REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Special Chief Secretary, Home Department, SeciJtariat, Hyderabad, 2 J 4 State of Telangana The Director General of police, Telangana State, Hvderabacl. 9n" 99 to SRt KoNDAeARTHY KiRXN KUirAH,'Xjil"rt" topucl rwo CCs to Gp FoR HoME, Hish court ioi t-# stlii'Jiiir ,n"aii,rt Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies 5 PSK. BS \ I CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 ORDER WP.No.12829 ot 2025 1E .S 6o( ,1 ) 70 M\v W6 . . 4,..-.-t-i $( o ^ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS