APHC010513582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 27062/2025 Between: 1. KIMIDI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O JANAM NAIDU, AGED 48, OCC- CONSTABLE, R/O.TELAGAM VILLAGE, VANGARA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 27062/2025 KIMIDI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O JANAM NAIDU, AGED 48, CONSTABLE, R/O.TELAGAM VILLAGE, VANGARA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRIKAKULAM ...RESPONDENT(S): [3460] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY KIMIDI SRINIVASA RAO,, S/O JANAM NAIDU, AGED 48, CONSTABLE, R/O.TELAGAM VILLAGE, VANGARA ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRIKAKULAM ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POSANI AKASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.27062 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the Respondents in not promoting the Petitioner as Head Constable on par with his juniors and batch mates with retrospective effect and in not paying remaining salary and increments for the suspension period, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner was appointed as Civil Constable in the year 1998. While he was working as Assistant Station Writer, Traffic Police Station, Srikakulam, an ACB case was registered for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act on 30.09.2013. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the same was numbered as C.C.No.25 of 2015 before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, after due trial, the Special Court vide judgment dated 02.05.2025 held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the Petitioner and 4 consequently, acquitted the Petitioner. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under: “As per the prosecution case, and the evidence of the PW1 and other witnesses it is not the case of the prosecution that A2 demanded any bribe on behalf of A1. All the records of the prosecution particularly Mediator Report-II/Ex P4 and evidence of P.W1 specifically show that on the instructions of AO1, only A2 received the amount and kept it in his pocket. Further, Report/ Ex.P1 and FIR/Ex.P2 and alleged demands made by AO1 on 21.09.2013 and 25.09.2013, do not disclose any iota of evidence about the presence or intervention of A2 in these transactions i.e., the release of the vehicle with condition of payment of bribe. Further, the evidence of the P.W1 categorically shows that he met A1 only initially, and at the end of their conversation and on the instructions of AO1. P.W1 paid the amount to A2, and accordingly, A2 received the said amount. Though the Prosecutor argued that A2 was present at the time of the conversation between AO1 and PW1 about the release of the vehicle and payment of the bribe and accordingly A2 knew, the prosecution case and the evidence of P.W1 did not disclose anything that the amount was being paid by PW1 to A2 for the purpose i.e., the release of the vehicle. Further, it is not safe to conclude and find that the A2 had knowledge that the amount given by P.W1 was illegal gratification for the release of the vehicle, without any corroborative material. 5 With this discussion, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove charge under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against AO1 and charge of abetment punishable U/Sec. 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or U/Sec. 107 of IPC. In the result, the AO1 is found not guilty of the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the AO2 is found not guilty of the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Sec 107 of IPC and accordingly, both AO1 and A2 are acquitted for the said offences under Sec.248(1) Cr. P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months. M.O.7/tainted amount of Rs. 4,000/- is confiscated to the State after appeal time is over. M.Os 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.” 3. During pendency of the criminal case, the Petitioner was suspended on 04.10.2013 and was reinstated into service subsequently. The grievance of the Petitioner now is that during the pendency of the criminal case, juniors of the Petitioner were promoted to the post of Head Constable and the Petitioner seeks for parity at par with his juniors regarding promotion for the post of Head Constable. The further relief is with regard to remaining salary for the suspension period. 6 4. Sri S. Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader, passed on signed instructions of Respondent No.3, wherein it is stated that a criminal appeal is being filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the orders of acquittal passed by the III Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C.No.25 of 2015 and further directions were given to take disciplinary action against the accused officers. It is further stated that the Petitioner will be promoted as Head Constable on temporarily basis with prospective effect and subject to outcome of the appeal to be filed in High Court of Andhra Pradesh in terms of G.O.Ms.529, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 19.08.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.593, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 21.10.2011. 5. Heard the respective counsel. 6. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.27607 of 2009 & batch, dated 28.01.2010, held that pendency of an appeal against an order of acquittal would not be a bar for release of retirement benefits. The paragraph Nos.20, 21 and 22 of the order reads as under: 7 “20. Insofar as the criminal cases are concerned, the Department has got a right to file an appeal. But, it cannot be said that the judicial proceedings have not been concluded. Once the criminal court acquits the accused, it must amount to be the conclusion of the judicial proceedings in the first instance. Therefore, the appeals filed against the acquittal orders cannot be treated as continuation of criminal proceedings. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in STATE OF WEST BENGAL’s case (1 supra), referred to above. Para 9 of the said judgment reads as follows:- “The submission of Mr.Chakraborty to the effect that pendency of the appeal against acquittal will amount to continuation of the proceedings cannot be accepted. Continuation of the proceedings must relate to investigation, enquiry or trial, and such investigation, enquiry or trial, if any, have come to an end with the judgment of acquittal. The same being continuing in the instant case, is misconceived, only on the ground that an appeal there against is pending. If the respondent No.1 is convicted by the Appeal Court for commission of a criminal offence, sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules would be attracted. Keeping in view the fact that different sub-rules of Rules 3 operative in different fields, we are of the opinion that sub-rule(3) of Rule 3 be held to be operative only in the case namely, 8 when an investigation enquiry or trial remains pending and not or when the employee person is acquitted. The situations obtaining under different sub-rule being absolutely different, in our opinion, sub-rule(3) of Rule 3 must be given a restrictive interpretation.” 21. If the appeal is not in continuation of original criminal proceedings, the order of acquittal is a final order within the ambit of Rule 52 of the Pension Rules, referred to above. After the orders of acquittal passed by the criminal court, as already stated above, there is no power for the Government to withhold pension or retirement benefits. The said benefits, therefore, are liable to be paid immediately after acquittal order. 22. If the appeal or revision proceedings are in continuation of the criminal proceedings, there will be no end for the litigation and the employees, who have been acquitted honourably, shall not get retirement benefit still conclusion of all appeals, revisions, special leave petitions etc. Appeal against acquittal, not being continuation of original criminal proceedings, Rule 52 as above, will not be available to Government forthwith holding retirement benefits.” 7. On the same logic even accepting the arguments of the Respondents that a criminal appeal is being filed against an order of acquittal, the same would not be a bar for the Petitioner to be 9 promoted to the post of Head Constable on par with his juniors. With regard to the salary during the period of suspension, the Respondent Authorities should examine the same in the light of the acquittal in criminal case. 8. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed with the following directions: (i) The Respondents shall consider the promotion of the Petitioner to the post of Head Constable on par with his juniors and the Respondents shall also consider the arrears of salary during the period of suspension in accordance with F.R.54(b) and subject to the outcome of the criminal appeal. (ii) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 16.10.2025 Ivd 10 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.27062 of 2025 Dated 16.10.2025 Ivd