APHC010387192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 20184 OF 2025 Between: Oh Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. Oh. Gopal Swamy, Aged about 65 years, Occ Retd RSI 11*^ Bn, APSP, Bhakarapet, YSR Kadapah District. Oceanic Heights, Mubarak Colony, Yadada, Visakhapatnam. R/o D.No.B-306, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Government, Home Department, A.P. Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Director General of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3. The Additional Director General of Police, APSP Battalions Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. The Commandant, 14 Ananthapuramu District. 5. S Luther, S/o. not known to the Petitioner, Aged about 54 years, RSI 14‘^ Bn, APSP Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District to Secretariat, Velagapudi, At th (IR) Battalion, APSP Ananthapuramu ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned orders issued in RC.No.A2/858/2011-24/ H.O.O.No.128/2024, dt.28-03-2024 of the 3 Respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner for his notional promotion w.e.f 15-03-2004 as ARSI on par with his junior 5*^ respondent arbitrary, unjust and contrary to law and in violation of the orders in WP.No.8687/2018, dt 20-03-2023 and set-aside the same and further declare that the petitioner is entitle for notional promotion for the period from 15-03-2004 to 09-04-2007 as ARSI and from 20-01-2011 to 15-06-2013 as RSI and from 10-02-2019 till 28-02-2021 as Rl on par with my junior i.e. 5th respondent as per orders in G.O.Ms.No.104, GAD Dt 16-02-1990 with all consequential benefits by revising and re-fixing the petitioner pay and penp\6^and lA NO: 1 OF 2025 th r to release the arrears Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned orders in RC.No.A2/858/201 1-24/ H.0.0.No.128/2024, dt.28-03-2024 of the 3'^'^ Respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner for notional promotion on par with 5 violation of the orders in WP.no.8687/2018 dt.20-03-2023 th pondent^ it is in res Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following order: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 20184/2025 APHC010387192025 [3460] Between: ...PETITIONER Ch Mallikarjuna Rao AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.G SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.N0.2Q1S4 of 2025 O R DE R: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Orders passed by the Respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.A2/858/2011- 24/H.O.O.N0.128 of 2024, dated 28.03.2024 rejecting the case of the Petitioner for notional promotion with effect from 15.03.2004 as ARSl on par with his Junior/the Respondent No.5, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leads to filing of the present Writ Petition are follows: as The Petitioner was initially appointed as Police 01.02.1983 and thereafter, he was promoted as 17.01.1998 and ARSl on 02.04.2007. Constable on Head Constable on While the Petitioner was working in 10^^ Battalion, three Charge issued against the Petitioner and consequent to Memos were the enquiry. punishment of censure was imposed vis a vis the Nos.1 and 2 vide Orders dated Charge Memorandum 09.08.2022 Memorandum No.3, the Petitioner was imposed a punishment and 30.07.2002. As regards the Charge increment with cumulative effect vide of stoppage of one Orders dated 15.05.2002. 3 The Appeals filed by the Petitioner were rejected vide 21.09.2002 and 21.10.2002 and 28.03.2003 Orders dated respectiveiy. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed Revisions and the 3 said Revisions also met with the same fate vide Orders dated 05.02.2004 & 17.04.2004 respectively. 4. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application before the Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.1 vide G.O.R.T.No.378 Home (SER-ll) Department, dated 18.03.2011 exonerated the Petitioner and the punishments imposed. As the punishments imposed on the Petitioner were set aside by the Respondent/State, the Petitioner filed O.A.No.2360 of 2017 to consider his case for notional promotion and during the pendency of the said O.A., the claim of the Petitioner was rejected and accordingly, O.A. was closed vide Orders dated 20.10.2017. 5. The Petitioner then filed W.P.No.8687 of 2018 before this Court questioning the orders of rejection of notional promotion. This Court vide Orders dated 20.03.2023 disposed of the Writ Petition directing the Respondent authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.104 General Administration (Services.C) Department, dated 16.02.1990. Pursuant thereto, the impugned Order was passed holding that the Petitioner was not completely exonerated of the Charges and therefore, the case of the Petitioner for notional promotion was rejected. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the reasoning given in the impugned proceedings that the 7. 4 Petitioner was not completely exonerated in spite of the issuance of G.O.Rt. No.378, dated 18.03.2011, is perverse and against the findings recorded by this Court in W.P.No. 8687 of 2018 and therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned Order and consequentially grant notional promotion from the date sought by the Petitioner. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the impugned Order need not be interfered with as the G.O.Rt. No.378, dated 18.03.2011, did not exonerate the Petitioner in its entirety, and therefore, the impugned order is in consonance with G.O.Ms. No. 331 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 03.05.2013, which states that when an individual is let off with words like " Warning' or ' let off" or "to be more careful in the future" in the final order, it is deemed that the charges are proved but only punishment was not awarded, and therefore, the impugned Proceedings cannot be faulted. 8. Heard the respective counsel. 9. It is to be noted that the stand taken by the Respondent Authorities in the impugned Order as well as in the Instructions to the learned Assistant Government Pleader are akin to the Counter Affidavit filed in W.P. No. 8687 of 2018. As there is no change in the stand taken by the Respondent Authorities, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition at 10. \ ^ 5 admission stage as no useful purpose would be sub-served by granting time to the Respondents to file a Counter Affidavit. Reasoning: The case revolves around understanding G.O.Rt.No.378, dated 18.03.2011 which was passed after taking note of the nature of allegations and charges framed against the Petitioner. The relevant paragraphs Nos. 4 and 5 thereof, are extracted hereunder: 11. " Government after careful examination of the matter, hereby set aside the penalties of two censures and one PPi for one year without effect imposed on Sri Ch. Mallikarjuna Rao, ARSI 144 of 10^^ Battalion, Mahabubnagar District The Director General of Police, Andhra Hyderabad, is requested to take Pradesh, necessary action accordingly in the matter, records received in the reference 3'^ read above are returned herewith, the receipt of which should be The acknowledged”. On a plan reading, there is nothing to indicate that Petitioner was exonerated on any mercy ground as contended by Respondents. Further, this argument was considered by this Court in W.P.No.8687 of 2018 at paragraph No.8 and held that reading of G.O.Rt. No.378, dated 18.03.2011, nothing is mentioned therein as to exonerate the Petitioner humanitarian grounds as contended by the Respondents. The paragraph No.8 of the said Order is extracted 12. on a on relevant hereunder: 6 " A careful perusal of G.O.Rt.No.378, dated 18.03.2011 would indicate that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner was set aside by the Government on merits but not on mercy as argued". In spite of the specific finding by this Court that the exoneration of the Petitioner is not on any humanitarian grounds, the impugned Order again reiterates that the Petitioner was not exonerated completely and the penalty of censure was modified as 'Warning,' and therefore, the case of the Petitioner could not be considered under G.O.Ms.No.104 dated 16.02.1990. The relevant portion of the penultimate paragraph is extracted hereunder; -fT 13. " The penalty of censure imposed in D.O.No.44/2002, dated 11.01.2002 which later was modified as ' Warning only' but not completely set aside and more particularly upon the request made by Sri Ch. Mallikarjuna Rao, RSI Retired and the same do not come under the complete exoneration as elucidated in G.O.Ms.No.104, dated 16.02.1990 and Sri Ch. Mallikarjuna Rao, RSI Retired has not made any appeal to the Government. Keeping in view of G.O.Ms.No.104, dated 16.02.1990 and in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W.P.No.8687 of 2018 for the above stated circumstances, the representation of Sri Ch. Mallikarjuna Rao, RSI Retired, is considered and rejected as he was not completely exonerated from the punishments and there are no merits in his claim". The above reasoning is contemptuous in the face of the findings recorded by this Court in W.P. No. 8687 of 2018 and 14. 7 the same cannot be sustahed. Apart from that, it is not for the Respondent Authorities to interpret an order passed by the Government/Respondent No. 1 and No.378, dated 18.03.2011 Therefore, the impugned Order is set aside. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed with following directions: contend that G.O.Rt. on humanitarian grounds. was (i) The Petitioner shall be considered for notional promotion from the date his junior is promoted forthwith (ii) Any warranted delay would be considered Contempt of this Court. as (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed'^* i i ' RAO ACHARI assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// To, secTioRORefcFR to Government, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretanat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntu^ T The Principal Secretary Home Department, A.P. District. 2. The Director General of Police 3- The Additional Director r Mangalagiri. Guntur District. 4. The Commandant, Ananthapuramu District. 5. One CC to SRI G SEENA KUMAR 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I 7. Two CD Copies Vijayawada, Krishna District General of Police, APSP Battalions, At 14 (IR) Battalion, APSP Ananthapuramu Advocate fOPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] gsg n y'. HIGH COURT DATED: 19/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20184 OF 2025 ^ . Current Section . S£S'‘ATCWSS' ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS