D. Rambabu v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Orders, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned Memorandum of Rc. No. 1068/E1- 1221HN2017- 19 dt. 03.05.2019 and its connected Rc. No. 1068/E1- 122lHRl2O17- 19 dt.29.05. 2019 issued by the 4th respondent where under denying the promotion of the petitioner as lnspector of Police, on the ground of pendency of ACB case vide Crime No. 2/RCT/ACB- Nizamabad/2017 dt. '10- 10- 2017 at Karimnagar despite charge sheet has been filed is clearly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and contrary to the State and Subordinate Service Rules and on the analogy of orders in W. P. No. 3448412023 dt.22- 12- 2023 and set aside the same and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitted to for promotion to the post of lnspector of Police without reference to the pendency of ACB case with all consequential benefits, like seniority, pay fixation etc. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '1 5r cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of lnspector of Police without reference to the pendency of ACB case vide crime No. 2/RCT/ACB-Nizamabadr2oir dt. 10-10-2017 at Karimnagar by suspending pending impugned Memorandum of Rc. No.106 8lE1-122l{Rl2o1t- 19 dt.03.05.20'r9 and its connected Rc. No. 1o6BtE1-122tHR/2017-19 dt. 29.05.2019 issued by the 4th respondent disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Between:

1. The State of Telangana, rep., by its principal Secretary, Home Depl., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. lnspector General of police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy lnspector General of police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND D. Rambabu, S/o Bikshmaiah, .aged about 48 years, S.l. of police, CCRB, Rachakonda commissionrate, Neiedmet, Sicr n,i"ra oio, nvoe ia-ual b istiti"' ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section i s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate lhe interim order dated 07.06.2024 in l.A 1 ot 2024 in W.P.No.'10837 of 2024 and dismiss the W.p. on devoid of merits. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.RAMGOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES (HOME) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2536OF 2024 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to punish the respondents herein for willful disobeoience and deliberate violation of the orders in W.P.No.'10837 of 2024 dated 071OG12024. Between: D Rambabu, S/o Bikshmaiah, Aged about 48 years, S.l. of Police CCRB Rachakonda Commissionerate, Neredmet, Secunderabad, Hyderabad district ...PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Ravi Guptha, l.P.S., Principal Secretary, Home Dept, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. Sri Dr.Jitender, lPS., Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

3. Sri V. Satyanarayana, inspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad. .,CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.RAMGOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES (HOME) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER -- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.1O837 OF 2o24 AND CONTEMPT CASE No.2536 of 2o24 COMMON ORDER: This Writ Pctition is filed rvith the lollowing praver: ''...Io js.srre cL tunt, order or orders more in the nature of l[/nt of ll,lctttdamus to declare the impugned Memorandunt oJ' Rc No t068/ti1 122/HR/2017-19 dated 03.O5 2019 ancl its connected Rc.No.1O68/ E1 122/HR/2017-19 dated 29.O5.201(l is.suecl by the 4th respondent uhereunder d.enging tlle promOtion of lhe petitioner os htspect<tr of PoLice on lh.e ground of pendencg of ACB cos;e uide Citte No.2/ RCT,/ACB Nizamabad/2017 dated 10.1O.2017 at Karimnaqur, d.espite charge sheet has been filed is cle-arly iLleqctl, arbttrarg, disciminotorg, unjust ond contrarA to the State and Subordinote Seruice Rules and on the analoqy of orders in W. P. No.34484/ 2O23 dated 22.12.2023 and set a.side t.he' sarne and. consequently declo.re that the petitioner ts entrtled for promotion to the post of Inspector oJ- PoLice ruithout reference to the pendencg oJ' ACB cose tuith all consequential benefits like senioritg pag fuation etc".

2. [n t]re prescnt. Writ Petition, this Court u'ltile ordering Notice before .Aclmission on 07.06.2024 granted the follou,ing interim ordcr "Learned Covernment Pleader for Home takes nol rce on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, u,aives further notice and seeks time to file counter afhdavit. a Registry is directed not to take out further notices to respondent Nos.1 to 3 in vierv of the above u.aiver. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and in vieu, ol the lau, laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State oJ Punjab u. Chaman Lal Gogal [(1995) 2 SCC 5701, there shal1 be an interim direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police as per his eligibility, without reference to the pendency of the ACB case vide Crime No.2/RCT/ACB- NZBl2077 dated 1O. 1O.2O17, on the file of ACB. Nizamabad." 3, According to the petitioner, the respondents did not compll' u'ith the said interim order of this Court, and therefore petitioner flrled Contempt Case No.2536 of 2024 for violation of the orders of this Courl dated 07.06.2024.

4. Therefore, the Contempt Case as weli as Writ Petition are taken up lor disposal

5. Heard Sri P.Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Iearned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for respondents ald perused the record

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Reserve 3 Sub-lnspector on 02.05.2005 and later he was converted as Civil Sub-lnspector on 28.02.20 l l in accordance with Rules. While the petitioner u.as n,orking at Bhiknoor Police Station, he was placed under suspension on corruption charges uide Cirr,e No.2/RCT/ACB NZB 2017 dated tO.IO.2Ot7 on rhe file of ACB, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad, and later the said suspension was revoked zrnd petitioner was reinstated intr> service w.e.f.

11.10.20 18. Charge sheet u.as filed in the said ACB case on

18.03.20 19 and trial is. yet to be commenced. Accorcling to the learned counsr:l lor the l)etirioner, as per senioritv and eligibility, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector ol Police, but hou,ever, the same rvas denied to the petitioner on rhe ground of pendency of said ACB case. According to the learned counsel, pendency of ACB case is not a bar for effecting promotion as per G.O.Ms. No.257 dated 10.06. i999 read rvith G.O.Ms.No.66 date<i 30.10. I997. Further, the petitioner filed W. p. N o.47953 of 20 1B before this Court seeking relief to consider his case for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. This Court while disposing of the !- 4 said Writ Petition uide order dated 2.1.2019, directed the respondents therein to consider the representation of the petitioner for promotion by duly taking into account the guidelines framed in the above GOs. 7 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that every Civil Servant has a right to have his case for consideration for promotion according to his turn and it is a guarantee flowing from Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. In support thereof, the learned counsel has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.O. Arurnugam and Others u. State Of Tamil Nadu and. othersL and Union O;f India a. K.V. Jankirantan2. Th-e learned counsel further submitted that this Honble Court in a catena of judgments i.e. W.P.Nos. 18326 of 2023, 45490 of 2022, 34484 of 2023,8359 of 2024 etc., directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for promotion without reference to the ACB cases. ' 1991 Suppl {2) SCC 199 , 1991(4) SCC 109 5

8. Per contra, learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Reserve Sub-lnspector on 02.05.2005 and subsequently, he was converted to Civil Sub Inspector on 2g.O2.2Oll. He had completed six years of minimum qualifying service in the rank of SI (Civii) as on 0 1 . 03 .2O lT . However, as the ACB case uid.e Cr.No.2/RCTIACBINZBI2O 17 on the file of ACB, Nizamabad Ralge, was registered against the petitioner, his case was considered for promotion. Further, after hling of charge sheet, the said case ivas numbered as C.C.No. 15 of 2019 on the file of learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Karimnagar, and the same is pending for trial. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not eiigible for promotion as per the Telangana State Police Manual Vol.l, Order No.74. The said Order No.74_2 reads as under: "He should not be facing any d.epartmental enquirg for graue chorges or inuoLued in ang inuestigation/ enquiry or trial into a criminal case against him or a regular inquny or inuestigotton bg the Anli Corruption Bureiu. or Tibunol for Disciplinary Proceedings uide G.O.Ms.No.374, Home (Pol.D) Dept., dated 4. i2.20OO". .- 6 Therefore' the resPondents are justihed in issuing dated 03.05.2019 and 29'5'2019' Hence' impugned orders learned Government Pleader prays this Court to dismiss the writ Petition g. Having regard to the submissions made bv learned counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record' it is evidentthatthepetitionerhadcompletedsixyearsofthe minimum qualifying service in the rank of Sub-lnspector (Civil) as of 01.03.20 17, thereby becoming eligible for inclusion in the promotion panel of Sub-lnspectors (Civil)' fit to be promoted as Inspectors of Police (Civil), as per seniority and eligibility' However, as a case rn Crime No'2/RCT/ACBlNZBl20lT on the hle of ACB, Nizamabad Range' Nizamabad' was registered against the petitioner, his candidature was not considered for promotion. Here it is to be noted that though the said case has been registered in the year 2077 and the charge sheet was fiied after a lapse of two years i'e', in 2019 uide C'C'No' 15 of 2019 on the hle of learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases' Karimnagar. there is no progress till today' for which' the - 7 petitioner should not be penalized. Nevertheless, many of his juniors were promoted, ignoring the petitioner's case on the ground of pendency of the ACB case. Here it is relevant to refer to the decision of Honble Apex Court in Chaman Lal Gogal,s cose (stated supra) at paragraph Nos.11 and 12, which is as under:

17. l'he pnncipLes to be borne tn mind in thl:; behalf haue been set out bA a Constitution Bench of titis Court in A.R.AntulaA u. R.S.lVayak & Anr. (1992 (11 S.C.C.22S). Though the sctid case pertained to criminal prosccution, the pnnciples enunciated therein are broadlg applicuble to a plea of delay in taking .the disciplinary proceedings us tuell. In poragraph 86 of the judgment, this court mentioned the propositions emerging from the seueraL decisron-s constdered therein and obserued that "ultimately lhe court has to balance ctnd u.teigh the seueral releuont factors balancing test or balancing process - and determirc itt each r:ase tuhether the right to speedy tial ho-s been deniett in a giuen case". L has also been held that, ordinoilA speaking, u.tlrcre the court comes to the conclusion that right lo sptt:cly lrktl of the accused has beert infinged, the charges, or the conuiction, as the case mag be, tuilL be qtLashed At the s<tme time, it has been obserued thot that is not tht, onlg corLrse open to tLrc court and that in a giuen cctse, lhe noture of the offence antd other cir- cumstances moy be such thot quashing of the proceedings nag not be in the interesL ol'.lustice . In such a case, it hos been obserued, it ts open to Lhe coutl to make such other appropiate order os it fintls just and. equitable in the circumstance of the case.

12. Appllling the balancing process, we are o[ the opLnion that the quashing of charges and of the order oltltointirtq en- quiry ofJTcer u)as not u.tarranted in the facts and circumslances of Lht- case. It is more appropnate and in the interest of justice as uell as in the inte rist of adrninistrotion 8 .- that the enquiry tuhich had proceeded to a large extent be allorued to be completed. At the same ttme, it is directed that the respondent shoutd be considered forthwith for promotion u,tithoul reference to and ttithout toking into consideration the charges or the pendencA of the said enquiry and if he is found, fil for promotiort, he shouLd be promoted immediately ' 'lbis diri.tion l-s made in the pdrtia ar facts and circumstances of the casc Lhough u.te are oluore that the Rules and proctice normallg fottoued in such cases mog be different. The promotion so made, if ang, pending the enquirg s"ta , hotueuer, be subjecl to reuietu after the conclusion of the enquiry and in the light of the findings in the enquiry ' It is also direcied that the enquiry against the respondent shall be concluded within eight months from todoy The respondent shall cooperate in cincluding the enquiry ' It is obuious thnt if the respondent does not so cooper(lte, it sholl be open to the enquiry officer Lo proceed ex parte lf the enquiry is not .oicrub..d- and finat orders ure not passed wi'thin the aforesoid peiod, the enquirll shtttt be deemed to haue been dropped."

10. In view of the law iaid don'n by the Hon'ble Apex Court' this Court has to balance and weigh several relevant factors' balancing test or process and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case' Admittedly, in the instant case, though the ACB case was registered rn 2077 and charge sheet was filed in 2Ol9' no material is piaced before this Court indicating any progress in the said case' Therefore' this Court is of the view that the impugned orders, dated 03.05'2019 and 29 'O5 '2019 are not sustainable in law and are liable to be set aside' a 9 I 1. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allorved serring aside the impugned rejection orders dated 3.5.2019 and 29.5.20 19 and the respondents are directed to consider th(, casc of the petitioner lor promotion to t he post of Inspector r,l' pohce rvithou t reference to the pendency of ACB Case registcr-gd uid6 Crime No.2/RCT/ACB-NZB-2)17 dated 10. IO.2Ot7 on rire filc r>f ACB, Nizamabad Range, Nizamabad and C.C.No. l5 oi 2O 19 on thc file of learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases ;rt Karirnnagar pending against the petitioner, in the existing I.ac:rncies, as ancl when promotions are effected. In vieu, of the orclr:rs passed in W.P.No. 10837 of 2024, no further orders are r.equircrl to be passed in thr: Contempt Case and the same is accordingll, closed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, penclins shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- I\I. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR t.' To, 1 2 J 4 5

6. + a o BSR sdcTtoN oFFtcER The Principal Secretary, Home Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. The lnspector General of Police, Hyderabad R1nge, Hyderabad. The Deputy^lnspector General of Pblice, Hyderab-ad Range, Hyderabad. S.ri . Ravi .Guptha, l.P.S., Principal Secietary, Uonre" De[t., Secretariat, Hyderabad. Sri . Dr.Jitender, lPS., Director General of police, State of Tetangana, Hyderabad. . V. . Satyanarayana, inspector General of police, Hyderabad Range, S.ri Hyderabad. One CC to SRI M.RAMGOPAL RAO, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to GP FOR SERVTCES (HOME), 'Hiqh Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI Two CD Copies \'qv Court for rhe State of HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 ) COMMON ORDER WP.No.10837 of 2024 AND CC.No.2536 of 2024 t0R THE S lt1 o t * 1 ri JUt 206 z , :4 rCi ,,rP * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION & CLOSING THE C.C., WITHOUT COSTS