APHC010615082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 31827/2025 Between: 1. PASUPULETI MADHU, S/O.SURYA NARAYANA, AGED 46 YEARS, SENIOR ASSISTANT, GIDDALUR MUNICIPALITY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. A.P 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, GUNTUR, A.P 3. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR CUM APPELLATE COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GUNTUR, A.P. ...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 to issue a writ, order or a direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of Manager/Revenue Officer, on the ground of pendency of stale disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the Charge Memo Roc. No. 369097/2023/Al Dated 29-04-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and C.C. No. 10 of 2025 on the file of the Honble Court of Special 2 Judge for ACB and SPE cases cum III Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable, irrational and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.91 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SER.C) DEPARTMENT Dated 12- 09-2022 and G.O.Ms.No.257,General Administration (Service-C) Department dated 10-06-1999 and Judicial Pronouncements and also violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Manager/Revenue Officer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257,General Administration (Service- C) Department dated 10-06-1999 without reference to the stale Charge Memo in Roc. No. 369097/2023/Al Dated 29-04-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and C.C. No. 10 of 2025 on the file of the Honble the Court of Special Judge for ACB and SPE cases cum III Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada and to pass 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 to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Manager/Revenue Officer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257,General Administration (Service-C) Department dated 10-06-1999 without reference to the stale Charge Memo in Roc. No. 369097/2023/Al Dated 29-04-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and C.C. No.10 of 2025 on the file of the Honble the Court of Special Judge for ACB and SPE cases cum III Addl. District Judge, Vijayawada and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENKATA KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.31827 of 2025 ORDER : The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in not promoting the Petitioner to the post of Manager/Revenue Officer, on the ground of pendency of the stale disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner in the Charge Memo Roc.No.369097/2023/A1 dated 29.04.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent and C.C.No.10 of 2025 on the file of the Special Judge for ACB & SPE cases cum III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 15.03.2002 and later was promoted as Senior Assistant. A criminal case was registered against the Petitioner on 09.11.2021 and after filing charge sheet, the same was numbered as C.C.No.10 of 2025 before Special Judge for ACB & SPE cases cum III Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The allegation in the criminal case was that the Petitioner had demanded for Rs.3,000/- and had accepted the said amount. 3. While so, the Respondents had taken up promotions to the post of Manager/Revenue Officer and as the case of the Petitioner was not being considered, due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4 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 Pasupuleti Madhu, 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 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 5 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 Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 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 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 merit in 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: 18.11.2025 SNI 1 (2012) 12 SCC 462 6 221 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.31827 of 2025 Dated: 18.11.2025 SNI