SRI K v. JANABDHAN RAO

Petition Lindef Artigle ?26 sf the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circum6tanceE stAtFd in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be please{ to is$ue a writ, order gr directign more so a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS py directinq the rQspcndents to qonsider the case of the Petltloner for promotion to the qost of Assistant Difector gf Treasuries and Accqunts aF per my seniority by dgclaqing the action of the respondents in not considering the same in terms qf Q,Q,Ms.tJo 2ql GA(Ser C) Department dated 10.6.19Q9 as illegal, arbitrary and ylolatiyg of Article '14 and 16 of lhe Constitution of lndia. A NO: OF 25 Petitiqn under Section 151 CPQ prayi4g that in the cirQumstances stated in the affidavit filed in 9uppp6 of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct ![e respondents to gonsider the case of the petitioner for promotiqn to the post of / Assistant Director of I'reasuries and Accounts in terms of G.O.lvls.No.257 GA (Ser.C) Department dated 10.6.1999, pending disposal . of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. V. JANABDHAN RAO :( Counsel for the ReFponCgntsi GR EqR SERVICE$-||| The Court mq{e the follpwingl OBBqR t THE H ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA.]ESHWA RAO WRIT PETITION No.L3732 0F 2025 ORDER: With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is dispoSed of at the admission stage itself.

2. Heard Sri K.V. lanardhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-III, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material on record

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that while serving as Assistant Treasury Officer at Suryapet, he received a letter from the Manager of State Bank of India, Suryapet, dated 19.ll.2Ot4, highlighting discrepancies in the surrender leave bills of the MEO, Chivemla. Though the work was not entrusted to him, the petitioner conducted an enquiry, and by letter dated 27.t1.2014 requested the bank to freeze the accounts of D. Kishore, JUnior Assistant, and others. Consequently, a sum of Rs.54,OO,OOO/- was recovered and credited to the Government account on 2t.12.20L4. Despite his role as a whistleblower, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in FIR No.38 of 2015 and the Police filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as c.c.No.3B50 0f 2018, based on his tenure from 2ol2 to 2015, even though the relevant bill processing work was assigned to the sub-Treasury officer as per Memo dated 30.08.2011, and implemented prior to his joining on 04'06'2012' \ 2 proceedings. A charge memo v,/a:i issued to him on 31.01.2018, to whici. he submitted a detaired exprarration on 14.03.2018. whire so, the petitioner fired w'P'No'7623 0f 2org seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Treasuries and "Accounts/Accounts officer aniJ the said writ petition was disposed of on 10'o4'20rg. pursuant to the directiorrs issued in W.P.No.7623 of 2}lg to consider his promotion irr terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dal.ect 10.06.1999, respondent No.2 rejected his claim by Memo dated 25.It,.rt}lg, ciiing the pendency oF criminal However, the procr:erl ings in C.C.No.3850 of 2018 were quashed by this Court in Crl.p.No. i.1106 of 2018 on 3L.O7.2023. Despiter dubmitting multiple representations dated 03.08. 202 1, 06.tL2021, 08. 09. 2023, and reminders on 05 06'i1024 and 15.07.2024, encrosing the quash order and police verification, the respondents failed to act, thereby denying the petitioner's promotion, notional seniority, and consequenti,r I benefits, while his juniors were promoted and are enjoying the higher time scale. Aggrieved by the sarne, the petitioner has filed the present Wri.! petition. 4' It is the speci'(: case of the petitioner that despite the earrier direction in w'p No 7623 0f 2079, no contempt proceedings were initiated by him due to non-comoriance by the respondents. Instead, the petitioner before the r:ompetent re leva n t ctocuments a fresh r€presentation on 0g.09.2023 seeking the same relief, enclosing submitted authorities, relating to quash of the criminal case. I I I ; j J

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill, appearing for the respondents, submits that the Writ Petition may be dlsposed of by directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 08.09.2023 in accordance with law, within a reasonable time'

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the said submission and has further informed this Court that the petitioner is going to retire on 31.05.2025.

7. Having considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel, without expressing any rival opinion on the merits of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 08.09.2023, keeping in view the quashing the order passed by this court tn crl.P.No.14106 of 2018, dated 31.07.2023, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. With the .above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, sha ll stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. SRINIVASA REODY AS ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, w, Telangana, Hyderabad. Department, Hyderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, The State of 2. The Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Treasuries and Accounts 9 9nu CQ to Sri K. V, Janardhan Rao, Advocate [OPUC] + L*q CCs to GP for Services-lll, High Court for the State of Telangana, at 5. Two CD Copiss Hyderabad [9UT] HIGH COUR:T CC TODAY DATED:01101;12025 ORDER WP.No.13732 of 2025 ,.-: .Ji:, B5 iiiy 2gn5 \-r,. {) -\-,, ' ^'!' \\ ': ' )f ;(.\. -::.- -. _.-:.-z DISPOSING C'F THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b