The High Court · 2025

6. V. Srinivasa Rao, Son of V.Ramaswamy, DSP, (AR), TSPA, Telangana State. (Now AddI,SP)

7. Ch.Vasudeva Reddy, Son of Papi Reddy, DSP, (AR), lSW, Hyderabad, TS. (Now Addr.sP) B. R.Janardhan Reddy, Son of R.Guruvaz Reddy, DSP, (AR), Mahaboobabad, T-S. (Now Addl.DCP, Suryapet) ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. P RAVI SHANKER Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : SRI B.KRISHNA, Government Pleader for Services (Home) Counsel forthe Respondents No.3 to 8 : SRI N.RAMU The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT :/ -_7 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.M OHIU,)DIN Writ Appeal No.782 of2o25 JUDGMENT: Hearci Mr. P.Ravi Shanker, learned corrnsel lor the appellant. Also heard Mr. B.Krishna, learne.c Ciovernment Pleader for Services (Home), for responder-rts; No.1 ancl 2 ar-rd Mr.N.Ramu, learned counsel for resporrrle:nts No.3 to B.

2. The learned \^,rit court dismissed the ,r rit petitton, W.P.No.2O224 of 2023, r.,ide order date<l ).8.O3.2025, rr here in the '",r,rit petitioner had sought a dt:c l:rration that the action of official respondents No.1 z.r d 2 in not promoting hirn to the post of Additional Sup,:r.ir.rtendent of Potice (Armed Reserve) as per Seniorit,. List dated 1 \

23.06.2022 on par with respondents No.3 1o g herein as pcr G.O.Ms.No.12 Home (Services-l) Depar-.rnent dated ( (

15.03.2023, \\ras illegal, arbitrary and in vrolation of Articlcs 14, 79 and 27 of the Constitution ol I. rdia. He had I 2 a-lso sought a declaration to set aside Memo No.3930/Ser.l /2023 dated 27.06.2023, as illegal and arbitrarlr. Being aggrieved, the u,rit petitioner has preferred this appeal.

3. The writ petitioner was serving as a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed Reserve) with effect from l),.O7.2017. While working as Assistant Commissioner of Police (CAR), Nizamabad. he r.r'as placed urrder suspensron. uide prc'ceedings dated 28.O5.2019 during the period from

29.O5.2019 to 06.09.2019. Disciplinary proceedings dated

14.O2.2O22 were initiated against him and he was imposed a penalty of postponement of annual increment (PPI) for one year with effect on future increments and pension. Suspension period was treated as 'not on duty'. The appellate authority uide order dated 28.01.2023 modified the penalty to 'censure', while maintaining the suspension period as 'not on duty'. The u,rit petitioner made a representatio n on O1.O2.2023 for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (Armed Reserve) as per Seniority' List dated \ I I J

23.06.2022. The Departmental Promotion Conrmittee (DPC) for the par-iel year 2022-2023 did not recom rrend his carse for promotion due to currency of the 11. nishment of 'censure'. According to the writ petitioner, his. juniors u,cre promoted on 15.03.2023 on recommendation of the DpC. Acc<;rding to him, his punishment had com(.Lo an end on

13.O2.2O23, counting the original penalty irrposed b1. the DPC. The lcan-red writ court however held it r;1,teru,ise. -+. Before us, learned counsel for tl-re \\-tI l]ctitiultcr apart from reiterating the grounds raist:cl before the learned writ court, also relied upon the clecision of a Division Bench of the erstu,l-rile High Cor_ r.r of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in the casr of A.Vema Reddy v. Controller General of Defence Accounts, New Delhir (paragraph l5).

5. As per the said decisions, the pLtnishment of 'censure' cannot be a valid and justifiable ler1.,r1 ground for overlooking the seniority ol the writ [):'titioner for promotion. Learned counsel for the writ o,,,titioner has I I ':oorlsy,tLo t:t1on; 4 referred to some interim orders passed by a Division Bench of the composite High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in W.P.M.P.No.13135 of 2Ol7 in W.P.No. 10592 of 2Ol7 d,ated 28.03.2017 arld a Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.2279l of 2023 dated

17.08.2023. It is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.342 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 04.08.1997 r,r,as also taken into account in the interim order passed by the learned writ court in W.P.No.22191 of 2023. It is therefore submitted that the respondents could not have overlooked the case ol the writ petitioner for promotion against the panel year 2022-2023

6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has defended the impugned judgment. He submits that the cut- ofl date for panel year 2022-2023 starts from O1.O9.2022 and ends by 31.08.2023. During that period, the writ petitioner was under currency of punishment imposed by 0 the DPC on 14.02.2022, thowgh it was modihed by the appellate authority on 28.O1 .2023 to 'censure'. In any case, punishments were ln operation when the Panel was -@-7: .''. . ,| ) prepared. He has relied upon G.O.Ms |io.342 dated

04.08.1997, rvhich is also conrained in the.t,t:tangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appea. ) Rules, 199 1 (for short, 'the Rules). The G.O. prescribes _hat ,censure, shall debar the individual for promotion/ appointment by transfer to a higl-rer post during the period of s ubsistence of penalty rvhich st-rall be indicated in the o-:1er imposing penalty sr,r bject to a minimum period of ,_,1 1s year both selection and non-selection posts. Rule 9 :rf the Rules prescribes the penalties, wherein ,censure, hil; been placed as a minor penalty.

7. Learncd counsel for the respondents_ Sr-:.r_e has relied upon a decisior-r ol the Apex Court in the cas,,, of State of M.P. v. I.A.Qureshiz, specifically paragraph 8 thereof. He submits that the Apex Court r.vhile considerinll Rule l0 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classific:r:ion, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which is pari rr,l,teria to the present Rulcs, held that ,censure, being a mirror penalty, is not equivalent to a warning, and as such, dur.rrg currency '(tggs) g scc uer ( ( \ 6 of the minor penalty, like 'censure,, the respondents could not be directed to open the sealed cover containing the recommendations of the DPC and the recommendations could not be given effect because the petitioner has not been fully exonerated and the minor pena-lty has been imposed.

8. Therefore, the decision in the case of A.Vema Reddy (supra) relied upon by the u,rit petitioner is of no avail and the rvrit court has rightly refused to interfere in the matter. 9 . We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parities, taking note of the relevant material, narration of facts and dates, which are germane to lhe issue in controversy. 1 0. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was suffering a penalty of PPI for one year with effect on future \ increments and pension as per order dated 14 .O2.2O22 I passed by the DPC. The panel for the year 2022-2023 was prepared taking the cut-off date as 01.09.2022, during which period the original order of penalty was in operation, 5 1 even though the penalt-y was modified b1. the appellate authority on 28. lO.2023 to ,censure,. The <:u rrency of the period of 'censure' was one year during n,trir:h period the r'vrit petitioner could not be considered for pr,motion as per G.O.Ms.No.342 daLed 04.08. 1997. As such. DpC in irs meeting heid on 08.03.2023 for the panel vr:,rr 2022_2023 did not consider the case of the u,rit petitionrrr during the t currency of the 'cen sure'. I 1 . The learned Dir.ision Bench in the caLs:r of A.Vema Reddy (supra) and thc High Court for ,.rc States of Telangana and Andhra pradesh in W.p.M.l).No.13135 of 2017 in W P.No.l0592 of 2017 dated 28.O:\)_Ot7 (supra) relied upon by the u'rit petitioner \\ras n()t apprised of G.O.Ms.No.342 dated 04.08. i997. Moreover rhe decision of the Apex Court in the case ol I.A.eureshi (s,upra), w,hich was on the subject of currency ol minor pena[1, of ,censure, was not brought to the notice of the lear-..r ed Division Bench. Therefore, the decisions are dis rrnguishable. Therefore, u,e do not lind any reason to inter i:re rvith the impugned judgment. \ 8

12. The instant Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// D/. MOI{D. ISNIAIL PUW REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI P.RAVI SHANKER, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES (HOME), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to SRI N.RAMU, Advocate. IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies. BSK HIGH COURT DATED:1810812025 /a' ,'.,''..,s /,- /r- l',,:i.: \ ),' * JUDGMENT WA.No.782 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS - - ----\- 1 rr: i i,i 7.," r\ r,.'\ 2\ (f. 2758Pil6 a) s PATCrt0 * ( l -: ( ,-, )r )fr