APHC010164152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 8664/2025 Between: 1. P. SPARJAN RAJU,, S/O. KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC SENIOR ASSISTANT, O/O. DISTRICT CIVIL SUPPLIES MANAGER, KAKINADA, R/O. 9-337, INDIRA COLONY, RAMANAIAHPETA, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533005. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT) ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamusand i) declare the action of the Respondent No.2 herein in issuing the endorsement vide REV-ASEC0MIS(OP)/60/2017-SA(A5) dated 26-12-2024 whereby the petitioners' candidature for the promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar was rejected on the ground of pendency of criminal case vide CC No. 23 of 2015 on the file of Hon'ble Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Vijayawada which was transferred and renumbered as CC No. 13 of 2021 pending on the file of Hon'ble Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Rajamahendravaram contrary to the order of this Hon'ble court in WP No. 2 23113 of 2020 as being per se illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India ii)Declare the action of the respondent no.2 herein in not considering the candidature of the petitioner herein for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar oh mere pendency of criminal case vide CC No. 23 of 2015Hon'ble Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB cases,Vijayawada which was transferred and renumbered as CC No. 13 of 2021 pending on the file of Hon'ble Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Rajamahendravaram illegal, arbitrary and unjust JL III. And consequently, direct the respondent no.2 herein to consider the candidature of the petitioner herein to the post of Deputy Tahsildar without reference to the criminal case vide CC No. 23 of 2015Hon'ble Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB cases,Vijayawada which was transferred and renumbered as CC No. 13 of 2021 pending on the file of Hon'ble Spl. Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Rajamahendravaram and previous endorsements in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257dated 10.06.1999 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to direct the respondent no.2 herein to consider the representation dated 16-01-2025 made by the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance to law pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.8664 of 2025 ORDER : In this writ petition, the Petitioner is questioning the endorsement dated 26.12.2024, whereunder the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar was rejected. 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Attender on compassionate grounds and later was promoted as Junior Assistant and Senior Assistant. A criminal case was registered against the Petitioner on 12.06.2013 and after filing charge sheet, the same was numbered as C.C.No.23 of 2015 before Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, Vijayawada and the case was transferred to Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram and the same was re-numbered as C.C.No.13 of 2021. The allegation in the criminal case was that the Petitioner had demanded for Rs.1,000/- and had accepted the said amount. 3. While so, the Respondents had taken up promotions to the post of Deputy Tahsildar and as the case of the Petitioner was not being considered, he filed W.P.No.23113 of 2020 and this Court disposed of the same with a direction to the Respondent-authorities that whether the case of the Petitioner can be taken up for promotion 4 without reference to C.C.No.23 of 2015. Pursuant thereto, the impugned endorsement of rejection dated 26.12.2024 for promotion of the Petitioner was passed. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the case of the Petitioner should be considered under G.OMs.No.257 GA (Ser.C) Department dated 10.06.1999, which provides for consideration of cases for promotion after lapse of two years from the date of initiation of enquiry. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Sri K.Varun Shyam Kumar, would submit that G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 would not be applicable to the Petitioner as charges against the Petitioner are grave in nature and are relating to corruption. 6. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.Varun Shyam Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents. 7. Para 6 of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 reads as under: 6. The appointing authority should consider and decide that it would not be against public interest to allow ad hoc promotion to the officer concerned and this shall be decided with reference to the charge under enquiry. If the charge is 5 one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then the appointing authority should consider as not in the public interest to consider ad hoc promotion to such charged officer. But, however, if the charge is not a grave one but is a minor one, not involving moral turpitude, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then only in such cases the appointing authority should consider that it would not be against public interest to allow ad hoc promotion because till then his record is clean with reference to ACRs, past punishment and reputation in the department as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and Secretary to Government. The appointing authorities should strive to finalise the disciplinary cases pursuing them vigorously so that within two years the proceedings are concluded and final orders issued. 8. The highlighted portion of the above paragraph makes it explicit that when grave charges are pending against an employee, his case should not be considered for promotion as it would be against public interest. 9. In the present case, the charge against the Petitioner is under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and it would not be in the public interest to consider persons facing serious allegations of corruption for promotion. The same would virtually amounts to rewarding the individual involved in 6 serious corruption case. In State of Tamilnadu v. E.Rangachari1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside orders of promotion passed by Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and High Court vis-a-vis the person facing criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 10. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order dated 26.12.2024 warranting interference by this Court. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand dismissed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 06.11.2025 KLP 1 (2012) 12 SCC 462