APHC010165412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8620/2025 Between: Gvv Satyanarayana Chowdary ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. C SRINIVASA BABA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue a writ, order, or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus wherein by considering his claim for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector as per his seniority as per G.O.Ms.No.66 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dt.30.01.1991 and also as per law laid down by the Apex Court by declaring the action of the respondent in depriving his claim for promotion as per his seniority solely on the ground of registration of Crime without filing a charge sheet as illegal, arbitrary and violation of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of G.O.Ms.No.66 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dt.30.01.1991 and to pass such other order or orders.…” 2. Heard Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for respondents. 3. Petitioner was recruited as Police Constable on 15.07.1984, later converted to Civil Constable in 1989 and promoted as Head Constable in 2011. On promotion he is presently working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police since 2014. Petitioner is said to be eligible to be promoted as Sub Inspector of Police. He is involved in criminal case vide Crime No.08/RCA- RJY/2019 for the offences under Sections 13(1)(b) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. Though crime has been registered, so far, charge sheet has not been filed. Though petitioner was 3 qualified and eligible to be promoted as Sub Inspector of Police, in the promotions conducted during the year 2020, though petitioner has submitted willingness to attend qualifying exam, his case came to be rejected on the ground of pendency of investigation in the aforesaid crime. Subsequently on 05.11.2024, another seniority list came to be prepared by placing the petitioner at Sl.No.4 and petitioner was allowed to undergo pre-promotional training which petitioner attended and completed training. The final seniority list prepared on 06.03.2025, places the petitioner at Sl.No.12. In view of the pendency of ongoing investigation in the aforesaid crime, petitioner apprehends that his case will not be considered for promotion though he stands within the zone of consideration. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and others vs. K.V.Janaki Raman and others1, para Nos.16 and 17 contends that unless charge sheet in a crime prosecution is filed he cannot be said that disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the employee, inasmuch as in the present case such stage has not reached the petitioner cannot be deprived the benefit of promotion. He also draws attention to G.O.Ms.No.66 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 30.01.1991, in particular para-5 which also steps in line with the aforesaid judgment. 1 (1991) 4 SCC 109 4 5. opposing the aforesaid submission, learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed on record the written instructions dated 03.04.2025, stating that in view of standing order No.74(2) of AP Police Manual Volume-I, in case there is any departmental inquiry for grave charges or involved in any investigation/inquiry or trial into a criminal case or investigation by Anti- Corruption Bureau or Tribunal, such person is not entitled to be considered for promotion. 6. Perused the record and considered the rival submissions. There is no dispute that petitioner is eligible and qualified to be considered for promotion as Sub Inspector of Police and that he was also allowed to undergo pre promotional training which he completed. Crime No.08/RCA-RJY/2019, registered against petitioner by Anti-Corruption Bureau is still at the stage of investigation and no charge sheet has been filed. The Apex Court in the above judgment has categorically held that unless charge sheet is filed it cannot be said that criminal proceedings are pending against an employee therefore denying the benefit of promotion to such person on mere pendency of the investigation would be contrary to law. Even in G.O.Ms.No.66 issued by the Government is also to the same effect para Nos.16 and 17 of the above judgment read as under: “16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a 5 charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many-cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/charge-sheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a, remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: (1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official; ( ) ................................................ (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned 6 official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before . 17. There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion no. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.” 7. In view of the Apex Court judgment Clause-5 of the said G.O has to be construed in the context of the para-17 of the aforesaid judgment. As investigation has not resulted in filing of the charge sheet, petitioner has every right to be considered for promotion and on that ground respondents cannot deny him the said benefit. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police as per his seniority in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66 General Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 30.01.1991, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date04.04.2025 SNI 7 206 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 8620/2025 Date: 04.04.2025 SNI