M. Madhusudhan Rao, S/o. Late M v. Raghavulu, Aged about

Order

Heard Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The Deti ioner aooroached the Court seeki no oraver as under: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that the Petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered and be retrospectively promoted as Assistant Commandant with effect from 01.01.2011 on which date the 6th Respondent was promoted as such consequent to assigning of notional seniority to the Petitioner in the feeder category of Reserve Inspector (AR) with eFfect from 31.12.2001 vide orders issued by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.40 Home (SER-I) Department, dated 18.01.2020 and the related order issued by the 2nd Respondent vide Memorandum Rc.No.345/E3/2014, dated 07.04.2021 with benefits incidental thereto duly setting aside the impugned rejection order issued by the 2'd Respondent in Rc. No. 209/G3/2020/1270, dated 03.10.2023 as being arbitrary, illegal contrary to well 4 Fl settled principle of law that subsequen: disciplinary proceed ings/pu n ish ments would not come ir the way of earlier consideration and in violation of stat L I :ry mandate oF Rules 6 and 22 oF the T. S. State & Subor: nate Service Rules, 1996 and Articles 14 and 16 of the (l )nstitution of India in the interest of justice and to pass... ''

3. The case of the oetitioner, in brief, as oer the averments made bv the petitioner an the affil lavit bv the Detltioner in supoort of the oresent writ p e lition, is as underl It is specific case of the petitioner that rhe petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and therei )re, petitioner is entitled to leave petitioner's claim considere,j against S.C. Roster Point No.2 as mandated under Rule 22 o= the T.S.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The petitioner was promoted as Reserve Insp€ ( tor vide order issued by the 2'd respondent i.e., Director Genertl of Police in R.c.No.345/E3/2015, dated 19.10.2015 and the petitioner is working as such till date. The petitioner was earlier placed under su; tension w.e.f.

02.O5.1997 on petitioner's alleged involvert nt in Crime No.42/1996 under Section 498-A, 42O, 307 an1 194 of C.I.D. P.S. Later, petitioner was dismissed from service vide 5 proceedings, dated 28.02.2001. The order of dismissal was set- aside by the A.P.Administrative Tribunal and the petitioner was reinstated into service w.e.f. 29.08.2001. The petitioner was convicted and dismissed from service w.e.f. 14.02.2003 and the same was set-aside by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.25912003. It is specific case of the petitioner that consequent to the directions, dated 18.12.2006 of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, petitioner was reinstated into service with all back wages vide order, dated 30.06.2007 of the 4th respondent and the period of suspension from 02.05.1997 lo 08.03.2001 and out of employment period from 09.03.2001 to 29.08.2001 was also treated as on duty. The SLP preferred by the State vide SLP No.5943 of 2OO7 was also dismissed on 24.10.2008. The petitioner on an earlier occasion filed O.A.No.5932 of 2013 to declare that petitioner is entitled for retrospective promotion to the post of Reserve Inspector w.e.f. the date on which petitioner's immediate luniors were promoted to the said post on 06.06.2001 onwards with all consequential benefits. The said O.A. was allowed in petitioner's favour vide judgment, dated

04.07.2014 and consequent to the orders of the A.P.A.T at Hyderabad in O.A.No. 5932 of 2013, the 1't respondent issued 6 \Eti \, orders in G.O.Rt.No.40 Home(SER-I) Depart nent, dated

18.01.2020 and had accorded permission to the 2 "c respondent to convene Review DPC for effecting notional pr,) notion to the petitioner in the Reserve Inspector Category on par with petitioner's Juniors w.e.f. 06.06.2001 and then es sign notional seniority. It is further the case of the petitioner tr at instead of implementing the orders of APAT issued in petii cner's favour, the 2nd respondent has issued promotion and pc,: ting orders to the 5th respondent vide Rc.No.134/G3/2( 2O-3, dated 10.03.2020. In the year 2019 vide charge memo, dated

31.10.2019 issued by the 3'd respondent disciplin: -y proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner. The t"d respondent vide Memorandum Rc.No.345/E3/20I4, dated 07. t4.2O2t placed petitioner's name above that of the 5th res[ ]ndent in the Reserve Inspector Category. The petitioner submitted a detailed repres( ntation, dated

17.t2.2022 to the 1't and 2nd respondents an: requested for consideration of petitioner's claim for promoti:1 as Assistant Commandant against Roster Point No.2 w.e.f. 11.11.2011 on which date the 6th respondent is pronr, rted Assistant Commandant and no action against tf e petitioner's 4ftl / 7 representation had been initiated as on date, the petitioner on earlier occasion approached this Court by filing W.P.No.46339 of

2022, lhis Court vide its order, dated 28.12.2022 disposed of the said writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of petitioner's representation, dated L7.12.2022 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the 2nd respondent mechanically passed the impugned order vide Rc.No.209/G3/2020/1270, dated 03.10.2023, rejecting the petitioner's request for notional promotion. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A The relevant Dortion of the order imouqned Rc.No.2oglc3l2O2Oll27O, dated 03.1O.2O23 issued bv the 2nd resoondent to the oetitioner is extracted hereunder:- 12) The earmarked RP No. 2(SC-W) was filled by a far senior to the applicant and as per seniority which is acceptable as per Rule of Reservation in promotion, when there is no eligible SC candidate available. At the time of promotion of Sri M.Mahesh Babu in 2010, no junior to the applicant was promoted overlooking him. 13) The Government in Circular Memo No 57759/Ser.A/20O4-7, dt.20.5.2004 while quoting orders dt. 11.7.1998 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (1998) 2 SCC 523 directed that in dealing with the cases for fixing the seniority, no request for revision of seniority for a period which is more than 3 years o.ld shall be considered. In the present case, no R.I. belonging to SC i,. 8 category was available for more than a decad: after effecting promotion in 2010 prior to bifurcation of the stat ) and the same attained Finality as more than 13 years lapsed. T I e said seniority was also taken into consideration by Dop'- Delhi during allocation of personnel between A.P. and T.S. d I y allocating (4) ACs to Telangana and (3) to A.P. and few were . so retired from service. 14) The individual was out of service for more tlr rn 13 years due to 3 criminal cases filed against him at varioL! points of time and penalty of PPI which were set aside by the: Hon,ble Courts. Now, following O.Es for the charges noted :gainst him is pending against him as on date:- Sl. No. 1 Ref PR. No.7312014 (No. L&O/Bslrr / t285 / 20ta), dt.27.O9.2OlO4 C.P.Hyderabad 2 3 PR. No.51/2016 ( N Bo. L&o/85/r r / t7 36 / 20 73 - 14, dt.09.06.2016 of C.P. Hyderabad PR.No.2312018 ( No. HCP/B 1/Bs / 0004 / 2018), dt.1.6.2018 C.P. Hyderabad Char e Tampering r f Service Book. He was placed suspension on ).8.2014 and relea s e c suspension 18.03.2015 pending dis osal of O.t Bigamous marr ages (4) I without takrg any permission an: violated Conduct Rule: and also shown na rr ls different worrr n as his nominee in pension /Lrc u Leaving the I tngerous (02) ISI prisor ers with the escort gri rty and travelled bv Ind igo flight from )elh i to H dera bad 15) As per G.O.Ms.No.424, General Admrrr';tration (Ser.C) Department. dt. 25-6-L976 r.w. GO.Ms.No. .57, Gent.Admn. (Ser.C) Dept.. dt: 10-6-1999, and GO.Ms.r,J r.66, GA(Ser.C) Dept., dt: 30-1-1991. G.O.Ms.No. 203 (Ser.C) Dept. dtd: 5-g- 1999 and Govt. Memo No. t4498/Ser.,, A2/2OLS'3, dt. 19.10.2015. there is no case to consider tlr request of the 3rt 9 individual for retrospective promotion as Assistant Commandant as per ROR in promotion in the Panel Year 2010-11. 16) In view of the above, the representation dtd: l7-L2- 2022, submitted by the individual, in pursuance of Hon'ble High Court Orders dtd: 28-12-2022. in W.P,No. 46339 of 2022, has been examined and found not feasible for consideration at this juncture as per the Govt. instructions and Rules in vogue. 17) The Commandant, SAR CPL, Amberpet, Hyderabad is requested to inform the individual accordingly. id vit filed on f and in oarticular Dara Nos.11 & 12 are extra hereu nder: - xi) The earmarked RP No. 2(SC-W) was filled by a far senior to the petitioner and as per seniority which is acceptable as per Rule of Reservation in promotion, when there is no eligibie SC candidate available. At the time of promotion of Sri M.Mahesh Babu in 2010, no junior to the petitioner was promoted overlooking him. xii) The Government in Circular Memo No 57759/Ser.A/2OO4-1, dt. 20.5.2004 while quoting orders dt. 11.7.1998 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (1998) 2 SCC 523 directed that in dealing with the cases for fixing the seniority, no request for revrsion of seniority for a period which is more than 3 years old shall be considered. In the present case, no R.I. belonging to SC category was available for more than a decade after effecting promotion in 2010 prior to bifurcation of the state and the same attained finality as more than 13 years lapsed. The said seniority was also taken into consideration by DoPT, Delhi during allocation of personnel between A.P. and T.S. duly allocating (4) ACs to Telangana and (3) to A.P. and few were also retired from service. DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION:- 10 F=t \- ' -',1 \'

5. The lea rn d counsel aooearino ont 1:half of the oetitioner m ainlv Duts-forth the followino srI rmissions in su D Dort of the oetition er case. i) The petitioner's case has to be consider,: J as per the orders issued by the Government vide Ct. O.Ms.No.424 General Administration (Ser-C) Departrr rent, dated 25.O5.1976 and G.O.Ms.No.1O4 General !,rlministration (Services C) Department, dated 16.02.1990, but however the petitioner's case was not considered as; per the said GOs. ii) In view of the fact that the petitio rer obtained favourable orders and the criminal proceedirr ,s registered against the petitioner ended in acquittat, t re petitaoner eligibility has to be reckoned in terms of t ule 6 of the T.S.Subordinate Service Rutes, 1996 and t le petitioner cannot be denied promotion on the gror nd that the petitioner is facing departmental proceedings as on date. iii) The reason of delay as cited in para No.13 of the impugned order is erroneous and irr rtional. The respondents have slept over the matter des;; rite clear-cut directions of the Tribunal and it is irrational tn the part of the Department to contend that petitioner's request is - 11 belated for the simple reason that the petitioner assigned notional seniority in the feeder category of Reserve Inspector only on 07.O4.2O2t and therefore, the petitioner could not under any circumstances have requested for notional promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant earlier i.e., prior to 2021, April. iv) The three years limitation prescribed in Memo, dated 20.05.2004 mentioned in the order impugned is not directed in the present case, since the petitioner request, dated 17.12.2022 which is well within the period of three years contemplated in the said Memo, dated 20.O5.2OO4, since the petitioner was assigned notional seniority in the feeder category of Reserve Inspector only on 07.O4.2O2L. v) The judgment of this Court, dated 28.O6.2O24 passed in W.P.No.5325 of 2024 which clearly held that subsequent disciplinary proceedings will not come in way of consideration of the claim of an employee at anterior point of time, the said principle of law laid down had been totally ignored by the 2nd respondent. Based on the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel aooeari no onb e h alf of the oetitioner contends that the Detitioner is entit! ed for the relief as oraved for t2 bv th e oetition er in th e Dresent writ oetit ion and Writ Petition should be allowed as oraved for. 6 The learned Assistant Government Pleader Servi s (Home) aooearino on behalf of the- resoondents Dlacin q relian ce on the averments made at ..1 rara Nos. 11 dL2 VI l ts-forth the followin q submass ions:- i) The Apex Court in its judgment reporr ed in (1999) 2 SCC 523 directed that in dealing vu th the cases for fixing the seniority, no request li ,r revision of seniority for period which is mor: than three years old shall be considered. ii) The petitioner was out of service for nore than 13 years due to three criminal cases fil,: J against the petitioner at various points of tim( and penalty was also imposed upon the petitiorr, rr which was set-aside by the Court and few (r.Es are stiil pending against the petitioner ts on date pertaining to the year 2O15-16. iii) The orders of this Court, dated 28.12.2O22 passed in W.P.No.46339 of 2022 rt recting the / - 13 respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.12.2022 was duly considered and the request for retrospective promotion as Assistant Commandant, as per RoR in the Panel Year 2O1O-11, is not feasible for consideration and hence, the impugned proceedings had been issued, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, there is no illegality in the said order Based o the aforesaid submis sions, the lea rned Assistant Government Pleader tor Services ( Home) aDDearrn on behalf of the resoondents contends that Writ Petition needs to be dism issed. Aba 7 03.10.20 3 issued bv the 2nd resDondent indi oerusa! of the order im uqned, dated tes that the 2'd resoondent olaced reliance on the s bseouent oroceedin os referred to and m entioned at oara No.14 of the order im ouqned, dated 03.10.2o2 3 when the subiect borne on rarnrd nartains tn tha .CCT Tead ittad vas of h f rre ros motion Assistant Com man dant as oer RoR i n oromotion in the Panel Year 2O 10-11. 74 wat\

8. The request of the petitioner was rejected placing reliance on Government Memo No.57759lSi:r.A/2OO4-L, dated 2O.O5.2004 as indicated at para Nos.l3 and 14 of the order impugned of the 2nd respondent v rherein, it is stated that no request for revision of se niority shall entertained after lapse of more than three ,7:ars and the SC roster points had been filled up by oUr =rs and that charge memos, dated 2Z.O9.2OL{, O!) 06.2016 &

01.06.2018 had been pending against the pet tioner. 9 This Court ooines that the ReviewDP confined to the record oerta in ino to tte obtaini q on relevan t date. dulv takino into :o n side ra exolanatio and aco ittal of t e oet i :ioner n in the needs to be Dosition deoa rt ental and riminal oroceedinos. but how er curi ouslv the 2nd DO den n t n laced re I ance on the subseq uent disciolinarv Droceedino and tl e list of said discio linarv oro edinos is entioned at oar No.1 4 of the I order tmD uqned and oerta i n in to disc linarv Droceedinos vide PR No.23 20108 whic;r was n fact r of Police. Hvd rabad, dated disoosed bv Commi ssione ( 15

10.11.2021 and the same is not disputed even bv learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the respondents.

10. This Court opines that the 2nd respondent placing reliance on the Government Memo, dated 2O.05.2OO4 is not only unreasonable, but also erroneous in view of the fact as borne on record that the petitioner was assigned notiona! seniority in the reserve category w.e.f. 31.12.2001 in the year 2O2O by the Government and consequentia! orders were issued on O7.O4.2O21 by the 2nd respondent and in view of the same, the petitioner had become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant during the panel year 2OO8-O9 and the petitioner definitely could not have made any request prior to assigning of notional seniority to the petitioner in the feeder category.

11. G.O.Ms.No.424 General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 25.O5.L976 and G.O.Ms.No.1O4 General Administration (Services C) Department, dated

16.O2.199O provides for consideration of cases pertaining to granting promotaon to individuals who were denied promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinary 10 w! proceedings, the order impugned passed by the znt respondent at para No.15 though refers to t1e said G.O. however does not indicate any reasons or jur,tification in arriving at conclusion that as per said G.Os there is no case to consider the request of the pet itioner for retrospective promotion as Assistant Commir tdant as per RoR in promotion in the Panel year 2O1O-11. L2. A bare oerusal of the order impuqned ! tdicates that the disciolinarv oroceedinqs referred to in ! re imouqned r edin s :ars, but not e u n L 2010 & 2O11 an therefore. the 2nd resDond. tt adm ittedlv did n ot take into considera tion the Rule6of _ he T.S. State and Su bordinate Service Rules, 1996.

13. A bare oerusal of he imo uo n t orde r rlso indica tes c roster oint is filled with another r andida te not belono rno to the Sc mmunitv and this Cor1't opines that the same is contra to the mandate cl ule 2 T.S. s ate & Sub rdinate Service Rules, 1996. L4. In view of the fact as borne on recc rd, the order impugned passed by the 2nd respondent is <:, rntrary to the - L7 orders passed by this Court, dated 28.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.46339 ot 2022 and the impugned order is passed mechanically, without application of mind, without considering the petitioner's case, duly taking into consideration the Rule 22 of T.S.State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and G.O.Ms.No.424 General Administration (Ser-C) Department, dated 25.05.1976 & G.O.Ms.No.1O4 General Administration (Services C) Department, dated 16.02.1990 and further referring to the disciplinary proceedings pertaining to the subsequent panel years, but not 2O1O and 2O11 in the order impugned being contrary to the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court that subsequent proceedings would not constitute a bar for earlier consideration, hence, this Court opines that the subject issue requires reconsideration by the 2"d respondent in accordance to law.

15. Takino into coosideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions put-forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services(Home) appearing on behalf of the respondents. 18 w!\ c) The counter affidavit filed on bt half of the respondents (referred to and extracte(l above) d) The contents of the petitioner's re:; rresentation, dated 16.O3.2023 to the respondent No. .(referred to and extracted above) e) The contents of the ordr:' impugned Rc.No.2O9lG3/2O2OlL27O, dated 03.1O.2O2: issued by the znd respondent to the petitioner (reft:r red to and extracted above) which on record at parr No.15 does not assign any reasons for rejecting tlt: petitioner's request for retrospectave promotaon as Assistant Commandant as per RoR in the promotio t in the Panel Year 2010-11 as per G,O.Ms.No , .24 General Administration (Ser-C) Department, date d 25.O5.L976 & G.O.Ms.No.1O4 General Administratior (Services C) Department, dated 16.02.1990, which in fact provides for grant of promotion to the individrr tls who were earlier denied promotion on the groun(l of pendency of disciplinary proceedings. 19 f) The fact that the 2nd respondent placed reliance on the Government Memo, dated 2O.05.2004 is not only unreasonable and erroneous, but also ignoring the fact that the petitioner was assigned notiona! seniority in the reserved category w.e.f. 31.12.2001 in the year 2O2O by the Government and consequential orders had been issued on 07.O4.2O2L by the 2nd respondent himself and an view of the same the petitioner had become eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant during the Pane! Year 2OO8-O9. S) Rule 6 of the T.S. State and Subordanate Service Rules, 1996. h) Rule 22 of T.S.State & Subordinate Service Rules,

1996. i) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.5 to 14 of the present order. The order imouqned Rc.No.2O9lG3 I 2O2O I L27 O, dated O3.1O.2O23 issued bv the 2nd resoondentt o the oetitioner is set-aside and the 2nd resoondent is directed Detitioner for to reconsider the request of I 20 rom to sA rl lant as Per Ro in oromotio n bv this Court VI d w .No.463 f 2022 anel Year 2010-11 _ as directed the P ord rd ated 2A.L2.202 ? passed in ro r 3 rea oned t a a d hin ADeriod of four (04) weeks from soeakinq ord ers wit the date f recei Dt ofcoov of the rder, lna ( cordance to iu stice, bv v withDri ncioles of natura nitv of oer onal ! o h law, ln nformit Drovidinq ano itio r and m e hed [;ion on the subiect issuetoth oetitioner. with these above directio ns. th Wt'_ t Petition is 16. disoosed of. H owever , there shall be no orde 1 as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinrl in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed S d/-],SRINIVASAREDDY rsrexr REGTsTRAR {ss //TRUE COPY// One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUST E URI: 'ALLI NANDA (For His Lordship's Kind rusa ) \ secnoru oFFrcER To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Departrr lnt, Secretariat, State of Telangana at TS, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, Telangana State, SaifzLt ad, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Hvderabad City, Hyderabr d. 4. The Commandant Special Armed Reserve, (SAR-CPL) qmberpet, Hyderabad. 5. 11 L.R. Copies. 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, J rstice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

7. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Libra y, High Cour1 Buildings, Hyderabad.

8. Two Ces to-GP FOR SERVICES, High Court for the S;l rte of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

9. o-ne cc to SRI V.-RAVICHANDRAN, Advocate [oPUo. 10.Two CD Copies I rr.----- HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 ,/;.-,.,.r ,.... \.9 ';\ ' C.C. TODAY ?,.h.. ,+ !f\ U ', 1t, APt, 2n2[ z .j : - -.- ':J1 ', : - .!:i' * Os, ORDER WP.No.33706 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. $e s