The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.V. RAMA RAO, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER GP FOR SERVTCES (HOME) The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA w PETITI ON No .42770 oF 20 22 ORDER: Heard Sri G. Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. ra roac t r r

2.7 asu der: Article "...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the of the Respondents in not considering the actlon seniority of Petitioner for promotion of PCs (AR) as HCs (AR) in spite of setting aside the impugned order by 2nd Respondent as null, void, illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and against principle of natural justice and violation of Articles 74, lg, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently memo issued by the 3'd respondent in C. No. 3768/A!/2022 dated 10-10-2022 is illegal and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and direct the 3'd Respondent to consider the Petitioner promotion as HCs (AR) on par with his batch mates and to pass Prayer is amended as per C. O. dt 19/12/2022 in tA 2/2022" ' ',. 1.,&, f 2 SN, J 3 The :ase of the petitioner in brief, is that the petitioner has been appointed as police Constable in the year 1999. The petitioner was suspended from services on 01,0S.2022 due to his arrest in Cr.No.58/2002 for the offences under Sections 468, 477, 474, 420, 477 of IpC of pS Karepally and the Commandant revoked his suspension on 11.05.2004 and the petitioner joined duty. The petitioner further submits that the criminal case ended in acquittal but the Departmental Enquiry dated 2r.7r.207s was proved against the petitioner and awarded the punishment of .,ppl for one (1) year without effe:t,, on his future increments and pension, treating the suspension period from 12.5.2002 to 21.06.2004 as ..Not on Duty,,. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred appeal and the Appefiate Authority set aside the :;aid punishment and ordered the suspension period to be treated as "On duty,,. The petitioner w,:s relieved on 15.03.2018 frrt6 16" office of the Commandant, 4th Bn, TSSp, Mamnoor, Warangal to join as Police Constabtes (AR/SAR CPL)(Men) by transfer and accordingly the petitioner joined as PC (AR) in Kharnmam District. The petitioner further submits that the 2nc respondent issued order dated 30.12.2019 for promotion of pCS (AR) as HCs I ! I I I i I 3 SN, J (AR), but the petitioner was denied promotion without counting his seniority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation before the 3'd respondent for consideration of his promotion as Head Constable and the same was rejected by the 3'd respondent vide Memo, dated 10.10.2022. Aggrieved by the action oF the respondents the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD. A. The relevant oortion of the impuqned proceedinqs C.No.10lPR/A6l2OO2. (DO No.1466/2015), dated

21.11.2015 issued bv the 12th Bn. TSsP. Naloonda is extracted hereunder: "I have gone through the entire file and connected records carefully, the case registered against the charged officer in Cr.No.58/02, u/s 468, 47L, 474, 420,477 IPC of PS Karepally has been ended acquittal in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellandu. But the departmental enquiry has been proved. The charged officer being a Government servant has been submitted fake certificate from the Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi, which is equivalent to intermediate for SI and RSI selections to get the reservation benefit. As stated by the vendor the above certificate was purchased by PC-608 and same was false and he also fails to inform about the criminal case on him for the above deFault, he has suppressed the above fact. Being working in 4 SN, J disciplinary police force, he should have not misguiced his superior officers. And also heateO tne Govt. Hence I award the punishment of ,,ppl for (1) year w thout effect,, on his future increments and pension. Treating the suspension period from 12_05_ 2002 to 2t-06-2004 FN totat (llO) days u, ;r,rOi DUTY". B, Against the said proceedings, dated 21.11.2015, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appeilate Authority i,e., Inspector General of potice, TSSP, Hyderabad and the InsDector General of Police, TSSP Hv e ra bad Rc.No.Rl74/A oo/2o1 (ROo d the aopeal N 160 20 6 da d 5 .20 6 t d t e r er bs "6. Ncw agreed with the above said order the applicant Sri. K. Krishna, pC 608 of 12 Bn fSSp now worktng in 4.,' BN TSSp submitted an appeal oetition to his offir;e for consideration. 7. I have gone through the appeal petition and connected records facts have been re_verified and it was founrJ that the certificate was originai and equivalent to Intermediate. Hence penalt/ awarOeO is set aside suspension period as treated u, on Jrty,,. c.T lm u ne r ee n M 2 d te 1 o 22 is e er n ra ed he n c.N 7 8 A1 on en Sri l conversion Krish na Rao, was along with his batch not considered for mates as thert-. was 5 SN, J an oral inquiry pending against him for his involvement in Criminal case vide Cr.No.58/2022 U/s 468, 471,474,420,477 lPC. Later, he was awarded punishment of PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension vide D.O. dated. 2L.11.2075 of the Commandant 12th Bn. On appeal the punishment was set aside by the IGP TSSP vide DO dated 25.06.2016. Since, he was facino OE when his batch mates were aooointed as PC ol t because the ounishment was set aside cannot no tona e t n a r red as t e h rovtsl n the Rules". D.T he relevant ortion of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resoondents is extracted hereunder:- " Further, it is informed that the representation of the petitioner was not considered for conversion along with his batch mates as there was an oral inquiry pending against him for his involvement in Criminal Case vide Cr.No.58/2002 U/s 468, 471, 474, 42O, 477 IPC and he was awarded with the punishment of "PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension" vide proceedings in C.No.10/PRlA6/2002 (DO.No.1466/2015), dated 21.11.2015 of the Commandant, 12th Bn.after conducting of an Oral Enquiry against Sri l.Krishna, APRC 1725 of CAR, Khammam formerly of 12"' Bn.TSSP, Nalgonda. On appeal the punishment was set aside by the IGP TSSP vide DO dated, 25.06.2016. Since, he was facing PCA D f.lF r,ulron his batc h rirttac f his requ est to aoooint hi now notionallv beca use the ouni hment was set a ide cannot be co sidered, as there is no such orovision in the Rules. rnnninlad DISC SSION AN CONCLUSIO N:- 6 SN. J

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the request of the petitioner to assign notional seniority on par with his batch mates who were appointed by transfer from TSSp on Og.04.2O12 had been rejected vide Memo, C.No.3768/A Ll 2022, dated tO.lO.2022 of the Commissioner of police, Khammam illegally merery stating that there is no such provision in the rules. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that the request of the petitioner to assign notional seniority to the petitioner on par with petitioner,s batch mates since the punishment imposed against the petitioner was set_aside vide proceedings Rc.No.R,/74l App/ 201.6, (ROO No.16O/2cj6) of the Appellate Authority, dated 25.O6 .2016, cannot be rejected now, on the ground that there is no provision in the rules to consider the request of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner notionally, because the punishment was set-aside is highly illegal, arbitrary.

6. Learned Government pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitaoner 7 SN, J in the present writ Petation, because there is no such provision in the rules and since the petitioner was facing orat enquiry when petitioner's batch mates were appointed as PC AR. Therefore, the'request of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner now notionally because, punishment was set-aside cannot be considered.

7. A bare perusal of the material documents filed along with the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition, in particular, the order of the ?ppellate Authority, dated 25.06.2OL6 very clearly indicates that the penalty awarded to the petitioner had been set-aside duly treating the period of suspension as "on duty" and therefore, the plea of the 3'd respondent in the order impugned, dated 10.10.2O22 stating that the petitioner was facing oral enquiry when petitioner's batch mates were appointed as PC AR and therefore, the request of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner now notionally, because the punishment was set-aside by the appellate Authority vide proceedings, dated 25.O6.2O16 cannot be considered, since there is no such provision in the rules is untenabte and rejected, since the impugned proceedings i 8 SN, J dated 1O.10,2022 admittedly as borne on record had been passed by the 3.d respondent mechanically in a routine manner, I appointed as pC AR, passed ciear orders As borne on record, the petitioner,s batch mates were since the appellate Authority had in favour of the petitioner, dated 25.06.2016 itself setting aside the very penalty awarded to the petitioner with a clear direction to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as ..on duty,,, this Court opines that the 3'd respondent is bound to reconsider the request of the petitioner to assign notiona! seniority on par with his batch mates who were appointed by transfer from TSSP on O8.O4.2O12. 9 Taki nq into consider atio a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and iearned Government pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents t I 9 SN, J c) Proceedings vide Rc.No.R/74l Appl2OL6, (ROO No.16O/2O16), dated 25.()6.2016 of the 2nd respondent (referred to and extracted above). d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) e) The impugned proceedings, dated LO.1O.2O22 issued by the 3'd respondent denying the request of the petitioner mechanically. This Court opines that there is no justification in the impugned proceedings Memo, C.No.3768/Al/ 2022, dated LO.LO.2O22 issued by the 3'd respohdent herein and accordingly, the same is set-aside and the 3'd respondent is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner to assign notional seniority on par with his batch mates who were appointed by transfer from TSSP on 08.04.2012 in accordance to law within a peraod of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order an( duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitaoner. l0 SN, J 1O. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall r;tand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- P.PADMANABHAAEDDY DEPUTY \S,f tsrRAR SECTIONJOFFICER t

1. The Home Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The lnspecto. General of Police, Telangana State Specral Police, Hyderabad. 3- The Commiss oner of Police, Khammam District. 4. One CC to SFi G. RAVI CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Services (Home), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [CIUT] 6- Two CD Copios MP 6-- CC TODAY HIGH COURT SN,J DATED:21 10312025 1 r'l i s T4r.^: 2 2 t.Pn ?[25 \ $ + -) r) r i.,\ '/. '\'* -.r-i ^ / ,2'' ORDER WP.No"42770 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -1 * 6 I I I I I i I i I i I i I i I ,