High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the natLiie of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to considered and be promoted to the post of Asst. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise without reference to FIR No. 0B/RCA-ACB-CR1- 2017 dated 25.09.2017' P.S. Anti-Corrupticn Bureau, City Range in terms of orders issued in G.O. Ms. No. 66 dated 30-01-1991 and the Judgments reported in 2017 (4) ALT 225 and 2013 (4) SCC 161 including the orders in W.P.No. 4549012022 dated '19.06.2023' duly holding the action of the Respondents in not considering and further denying promotion to the Petitioner to the post of Asst. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise without reference to FIR Nc o8/RCA-ACB-CR1--2017 dated 25.09.2017, P.S. Anti-Corruption Bureau, City Range, as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust contrary totheorders(SsuedinG.o.Ms.No.66dated3o-1-lgglandthelawlaiddownin and in vrolation o{ Articles ; rd3'nents 14 and 16 ot the the above Constrtutron referred of lndia tA oN 2024 1 oF Petition under Sec affidavit filed in suppo the ResPondents to cons mmissioner Asst. Co OBi RCA'ACB-CR1- Range on the anaiogY o 2011 \4\ ALI225 2c4'1 tion 151 cPc p{aying rt of the Petition' ider the case oi the and Ex Prohibition dated 25'09'2017' in s r Orders Passed rnstances stated in leased to direct n to the Post that in the circu Hish Court may be P ioner {or Promotio cise without reference to FIR No Petit Bureau, CitY ent reported in P.S Anti-CorruPtion imilar cases and Judgm No: OF 2025 1 IA Between: ' ::t%?'J5J?l'f:r

2. The Corr'missione HYderaoao , : $.",8ffiq":::1*: :;;:#ff [#" ;-" r' Prohibition and Exctse "'pETlTloNERs AND i. r,arrq District Prohibition and -;.,molex, Kumaram c-r ,Y"1'^"-^; "HJ''oencv set ,13'-"#"'Bi"r;Xi ad - 500 013 ',}tft H,ri;{};fl^#k:"":'Hlf; Petition under Section 151 CPC praying tha't'ln the circumstances stated in petition. the High court may be pleased to wp Nc zszz T of 2a24 and dismiss the ...RESPONDENT the affidavit rire,l in srpp],t "r,n" vacate the lrter rr order i;" to Writ Petitron as de'roid of merits 'o'oln Counsel for the Petitioner: lLts ' A'DEEPTHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-l The court made the following: ORDER \- - \tr;.effi n*....,:, j"].. _rH i- '';:l 't ti' " "*4 \+ E 2 the next higher post in view of the law laid dcwn by it A'Jalender Reddg o. State of Telanganar' Further' the petitioner has filed a detailed explanation denying the allegations in response to notice However, he was Placed in connection with above said crime' dated 10.10 .2017 and under suspension vide G'O'Rt'No'616' thereafter reinstated into serwice vide G.O'Rt'No'465' dated lg .12.2021 . Learnecl counsel further submits that it is settled principle of law that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and such right is denied to the petitioner at the threshold itself on the ground of pendency of FIR' Withholding of the promotion would amount to imposition of a penalty even before the allegations leveled are held proved' Learned counsel further contends that in an earlier occasion also the claim of the petitioner for promotion was overlooked and the same necessitated the petitioner to frle the present writ petition'

3.1) Learned counsel further contends in lJnion o! India a' Anil Kumar Sarkarz, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categoricatly held | 2017 l4l Al:l 225 , (2013) 4 SCC 161 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK WRIT PETI ONNo.29227 0F TI 2o24 ORDER: Seeking to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered a,d promoted to the post of Assista,t commissioner of Prohrlbition & Excise, without reference to pendency of FIR No.Og/ RCA-ACB-CRt-2OtZ, dated 2S.Og.2OtZ, pS Anti_Corruption Bureau, City Range, the present Writ petition is filed. 2) Head Ms.A Deepthi, learned connsel for the petitioner, arrd learned Government pleader for Services_I appearing for the respondents. No.08/RCA-ACB-CR-1/2077, 3) Learned counser for the petitioner submits that rvhiie the petitioner was working as prohibition and Excise Superintendent, a case of disproportiorlate assets by the ACB authorities in FIR d.ated. 25.09.2077 of pS ACB, City Ra,ge, Hyderabad, was registerecl against the petitioner and as on date no charge sheet is hled by the Investigating Agency. Neither final report is sent to Government nor sanction is accorded for proseculion, till date. Therefore, he is fully eligible for prornotiorr to -:i=19*:'.iar { ,that promotion cannot be denied in the absence of charge memo f charge sheet. The principle laid down in the said decision squarely applies-to the case of the petitioner' Therefore' denying promotion to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Commissioner of prohibition & Excise on the ground of pendency of FIR No'08/RCA- ACB-CRL/2O17, datecl 25'09'2017, is arbitrary' illegal arld contrary to the decisions referred to above' :. , ". :. .r .- . . -: ^'.1.:::", 4l On 22.10.2024, this Court has issued interim direction to the respon<lents to'Consider the case of the petitioner for prombtion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in terms of G-O.Ms-No'66, General Aclministration (Services-C) Department, dated 30.01' 1991, in the existing vacancies' 5) Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submits that ,"vhile the petitioner rvas under suspension, a palel of Prohibiticn & Excise SuPerintendents I,VAS prepared bY the Goverrrment for considering promotions to the category of Assistalt Commissioner of Prohibition &. E1c-ise for the yeat 2020-21 ald the name of the petitioner was passecl-over. Subsequently, the suspension was revoked. vide order dated 09.L.2021, without prejudice to the 'E \tr'"-€ J 'criminal / clisciplinarl' proceedings pending agairst the petirioner and he was posted as District prohibition & Excise Officer, Komuram Bireem Asifabad District. Leamed Government pleader further submits that by registration of FIR, pnma facie case is made out against the petitioner for possession of assets disproportionate to the knowrr solu.ces of income. The ACB authorities a-fter deta,ed investigation of the case have submitted draft frnal report to the Gover-nment and the matter is uncler examination of the Go'rernment foi' f',-rrther course of action in said ACB case. Further, the Hon,ble Supreme Court i:: llnion oJ Ind.ia. u. I{.V. Janakirarns dealt w_ith the scope of promotion to arr enployee facing cliscipJina_.a. proceedings a,d held rhar the promotion to a post and more so to a selection post. depends upon severa_l circumstances. To qua-lii;; for promotion, the ieast t.nat is expected of an ernplo;"-ee is to have a,r unblemished record. That is the minimum expccted to ensltre a clean ald efficient administration and to protect the public interests. An emplovee found guilq, of a misconduct calno t be placed on p;rr $,ith the other employees and hjs case has to be treated differently. There , AIR I99I SC 2OIO *+.!:::g*q ._-_--n --€ 7 5 , is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of promotion' he is treated differentlY.

5.1) Learned Government Pleader further submits that in W.P.Nos.43182 of 2016 & batch this Hon'ble Court' based on the decision of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos'S1-55 of 1990' held that with the initiation of ACB case, the reqrrisite formulation of the charges, in such a case, is no longer nebulous' being crystallized in the FIR itself and therefore it is deemed that disciplinary proceedings are set in motion and pending and therefore it was held that the petitioners therein rvere not entitled to claim promotion. Thus, the learned counsel contends that the petitioner not entitlecl for promotion as the allegations are grave in nature and pertain to moral turPitude' 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record' 7|Admittedly,rvhilethepetitionerrvasrvorkingasProhibitiorr& Excise Superintendent, ACB a case is registered against him vide crime No.08/RCA-ACB-CR-Ll2Ol7, dated 25.09'2017' on the 6 ground of disproportionate assets and he was placed under suspension on 10. 10.2017 ald again reinstated on 79.12.2021. 8) It is relevant to state that in A. Jalend.er Red.d,g,s case (referred supra), it has been held as under: "23.S) in IVp NOs.3188 ol 2077 &, 2449 of 2017 since only crime is. registered on the allegation of demaad and acceptance of bribe and no charge sheet is frled nor permission for prosecution is sought their ctaim for promotion cannot be deferred. Thus, petitioners are entitled to be considered for prornotion without reference to tJ.e pending crimes agbinst thcm and if they are otherwise eligible arrd suitable.,, 9) Further, in similar circumstarrces, in W.p.No .4S4gO of 2022, vide order dated 19.06.2023, atpara 11, it has been held as under: "The judgrnents relied by ttre leamed counsel for the petitioner i.e., A. Jalander Reddy Vs. State of Telalgala (supra 1) arrd State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N.Shalkar prasad (supra 2) are appricable for some extent. In view of the above judgrnents, whenever the respondents are effecting the promotions to the post of Superintendent of police fNon-Cadre) in future, if there is no charge memo or charge sheet pending against the petitioner, he is eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre).,, l0) In the case on hand also, though the case was registered against the petitioner by the ACB authorities on 2S.OI.2OIZ, admittedly, till date, no charge sheet is filed. Therefore, in view of .. _--:-'..'r7 ,{ '7 , the above decisions, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher post without reference to pendency of F,I.R. 11) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner' Prohibition & Excise' as and when promotions take place' without reference to pendency of FIR No.08/RCA-ACB-CR-1/2017' dated 25'Og'2017 of PS ACB' City Range, HYderabad' Miscellaneous petitions pend.ing, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed' No costs' 'o'ir,$,tf i$f ['='.T$'[iR r,tg //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 4 ( (E-xcise and CT Department)' Secretariat' The Principal Secretary' .Revenue -H +ljir ;d ; ;;'5i"Ie-. The Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise Department' Telangana State' vd eiau ad state or relans a n a Hyderabad. One CC to Ms. A.DEEPTHI, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-I' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies BSR BS Ny HIGH COURT DATED:2610912025 CC TODAY :i; ORDER WP.No.29227 of 2024 i jt'," 1s t J \t\,\ rs L' - - ii .''. : lr. _-;( i--.-.1 .., \ .tf.\ - ! . ' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS /1\ ( Sh,r .1_ tI t{