High Court · 2025

4, K.Nagendrudu, S/o.K.Naganna, ACP, (AR), Rachakonda, Telangana State. 5. S.Suresh, S/o.Nallanna, DSP, (AR), Nalgonda, Telangana Stale. 6. V.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.V.Ramaswamy, DSP, (AR), TSPA, Telangana State. T Ch.Vasudeva Reddy, S/o.Papi Reddy, DSP, (AR), lSW, Hyderabad, Telangana State, B. R.Janardhan Reddy, S/o.R.Guruvaz Reddy, DSP, (AR), Mahaboobabad, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 otf the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of fi/landamus by declaring the action of the Official Respondent No.1 and 2 in not promoting petitioner to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (AR) as per Seniority List dated 23.06.2022 as par with Respondents 3 to B herein as per G.O.N/s.No.12 dated'15.03.2023 by setting aside the l/lemo l No.3930/Ser.1 1A212023, Dated 27.06.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, '1 9 and 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 suspend the orders passed by the Respondent No.1 herein Memo No. 3930/Ser.1/A212023, daled 27 -06-2023 and consequently direct the official respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Additional Supgrintendent of Police (AR) pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.K.G.BHATIA Qounsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES (HOME) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to 8: SRI RAMU NALLAMOTHU The Court made the following: ORDER ,// I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.20224 of 2023 This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "... declaring the action of the ofhcial Respondents No.1 and 2 in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Additionat Superintendent of Police (AR) as per Seniority List dated 23.06.2022 as par with Respondents 3 to 8 herein as per G.O.Ms.No.12 dated 15-3-2023 by setting aside the memo No.3930/Ser.1/A212O23, dated 2T -6-2023 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of tl.e Constitution of India in the interest ofjustice...." 2) Heard Sri R.G.K. Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and Sri Ramu Nallamothu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 8. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Commissioner of police, CAR, Nizamabad, disciplinary proceedings, under Rule 20 of ACCA Rules, 1991, were initiated against him and he was awarded the penalty of 'PPI for one year with effect on future increments and pension'and the suspension period from 29.OS.2Olg to 06.O9.2019 was treated as 'not on duty' vide proceedings Rc.No.SO l02/2olg, dated 14.02.2022. Thereafter, the said punishment was modified by the Appellate Authority to that of ,censure, vide G.O.Rt.No. 197, dated 28.O1.2023 for rhe period frorn t4.O2.2O22 to 13.02.2023. 1 PK, J wP-120224_2023 Therefore, after expiry of punishment period, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.2 requesting to consicler his case for promotion, on par with his juniors, to the post of Additional Superintendent, as per seniority list dated 23.06.2022 wherein he was placed al Sl.No.6. However, in the Departmentzrl promotion Committee (DPC) meeting, which was held on 08.O3.2023, the case of the petitioner was ignored even though the period of censure punishment u,as completed and his juniors i.e. respondents 3 to g herein were considered for promotion, which is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel has further submitted that aggrieved by the non-ccrnsideration of his representation dated 28.01.2023, petitioner filecl W.P.No.8842 of 2023 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2023 with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated

28.OI.2023 within a period of eight weeks. In consequt:nce thereof, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order vide Memo No.393O/Ser. | /A12023, dated 27.06.2023, even without referring to his representation dated 28.O1.2023 or the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 31.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.88 42 ol 2O2B and also in contravention to G.O.Ms.No.342, dated O4.08.1997. Learned counsel has further contended that as the punishment of censure is a minor penalty, petitioner shall be considered for promotion and the respondents ought to have considered the J- PK, J wP_20224 2023 ') petitioner for promotion as per seniority and fitness and 'censure' is not a bar for promotion, in case of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to pass necessary orders by I setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2023. 4l Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that initially the petitioner was appointed as RSI on 15. 1O. 1992, thereafter promoted as Reserve Inspector, AR, on 18.12.2006, and further promoted as Dy. Supdt of Police, AR, on 11.07.2017. While the petitioner was working as ACP (CAR), Nizamabad, he was awarded the penalty of 'PPI for one year with effect on future increments and pension' vide proceedings Rc.No. 50 I Ol / 2019, dated 14.02.2022, issued by the DGP, Telangana, Hyderabad. However, in appeal, the said punishment was modified by respondent No. 1 to that of 'censure' besides treating the period of suspension as 'not on duty', vide G.O.Rt.No.197, Home (Ser.l) Dept., dated 28.01.2023. Thereafter, the request of the petitioner to consider his case for promotion as Addl.SP (AR) was forwarded by respondent No.2 to Government vide letter Rc.No.357/G3 12022, dated O1.O2.2O23, for further action in the matter. But, the DPC, which met on O8.03.2O23, though examined the case of the petitioner, but did not recommend for inclusion of name of the petitioner in the panel as he was under currency of penalty of Censure during the panel year 2022-2O23 while considering the -4- PK, J wP-2O2242O23 cases of juniors of the petitioner for promotion. Therefore, as per G.O.Ms.No.34S, cAD (Ser.C) Dept., dated 04.08.1997, and as per Rule 6 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, petitioner is not eligible for promotion as he was under currency of punishment of censure during the relevant period. As such, the respondents are justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for promotion. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5) This Court has taken note of the Submissions respective counsel and perused the material on record. made by 6) The only point for determination in this writ petition khether the petitioner is entitled for promotion during the panel year 2022-2023?' IS 7) A perusal of the material on record reveals that while the petitioner was working as ACp, the punishment of ,ppl for one year with effect on future increments and pension,was imposed on him by respondent No.2 vide proceedings Rc.No.SO/O1/2O19, dated 14.02.2022. However, the said punishment was modified in appeal to that of censure uide G.O.Rt.No.197, dated 2g.O1 .2023, by respondent No.2. 8) Here, it is pertinent to refer to G.O.Ms.No.342, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 04.0g. 1997, wherein the I -5 PI{, J wP-20224 2023 Government has issued certain comprehensive instructions on the currency and effect of minor penalties on Government employees who were involved in disciplinary cases and who come up for consideration for promotion to higher categories. As per said G.O., for the penalty of Censure,, the effect in terms of G.O.Ms.No.53, GAD (Ser.C) Dept., dated O4.O2.I9TZ, would be such that every Censure awarded shall debar a Government employee for promotion/ appointment by transfer for one year to both selection and non-selecLion posts. 9) In the case on hand, the panel year 2022-2023 starts from OI.O9.2022 and ends by 3 1.08.2023. Therefore, the petitioner is under currency of punishment during the relevant period and therefore the respondents are justified in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy.S.p. (AR). This Court does not Iind any error in the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 1O) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shali stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1

2. J, 4 I .BSR ... One CC to SRI R.K.G.BHATIA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI RAMU NALLAMOTHU' Atlvocate IOPUCI TwoCCstoGPFoRSERVICES(HOME),HighCourtfortheStateof i"tlngan" at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies *v ---'** x--!.:'.t HIGH COURT DATED:28t4312025 \ I i l I ORDER WP.No.20224 of 2023 {R rlE S14 o I ,IE APR ilE ($ C) t5n ICH s.0 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @ )K \