THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.13289 OF 2023 ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, without reference to Charge Memos issued by the 1st respondent vide G.O.Rt.No.326 Revenue (Vigilance-IV) Department dated 24.03.2017, G.O.Rt.No.1117 Revenue (Vigilance-IV.2) Department dated 26.08.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise on par with his juniors without reference to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, with all consequential benefits. 2. Facts of the case in nut shell are that, the petitioner entered into service as Excise Inspector in 1995, was promoted as Assistant Excise Superintendent in 2009, and thereafter as Excise Superintendent in 2013. He, then became eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise. It is the case of the petitioner that departmental proceedings were initiated against him through three charge memos issued between 2017 and 2020. The petitioner asserts that he sought copies of certain documents and one of the charge 2 NV,J W.P.No.13289 of 2023 memos was not even furnished to him, preventing him from submitting his explanation. It is further stated that several similarly placed officers, who were also facing disciplinary proceedings in connection with the liquor syndicate scam, were considered for promotion under G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, whereas the petitioner’s promotion was deferred by the respondents. Vide G.O.Ms.No.464 dated 31.08.2018, the petitioner’s name was included in the panel of eligible officers for the panel year 2017-2018, but his promotion was deferred till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner’s earlier challenge to this action in O.A.No.1980 of 2018 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal resulted in a direction to complete the enquiry within four months. Subsequently, in W.P.No.19700 of 2020, this Court directed the respondents to take a decision on the proposals for promotions for the panel year 2013-2014. However, by Memo dated 10.03.2021, the 1st respondent declined to consider the petitioner for promotion. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the action on the part of the authorities in not considering the request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise is nothing but depriving promotion, inasmuch as, the authorities denied and deferred his promotion while effecting such promotion to his juniors 3 NV,J W.P.No.13289 of 2023 for the panel year 2017-2018 on the sole ground that the departmental proceedings initiated in the year 2017 were pending against the petitioner. She submits that, upto the panel year 2016-2017, since the petitioner is not facing any departmental proceedings, the authorities ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion for panel year 2013-2014 or included his name in the panel year 2014-2015, thereby, the petitioner would have promoted against the available vacancies for the panel year 2014-2015 in the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, even as per the guidelines issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008, disciplinary proceedings against the charged officers shall be finalized within a period of three months in simple matters and within six months in complicated matters. But, contrary to the same, initiation of disciplinary action on the part of the respondents is only for deferring promotion to the petitioner is nothing but violating his Fundamental Right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and requested to grant the relief as prayed in the writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I would submit that, despite the petitioner knowing fully aware of the fact 4 NV,J W.P.No.13289 of 2023 with regard to pendency of charges, he did not disclose the same in the writ petition, as such suppressed material facts of his involvement in various cases and obtained interim order dated 12.05.2023, hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. 6. Heard Smt. Kavita Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s name was included in the panel for promotion for the year 2017-2018, but his promotion was deferred on account of pending disciplinary proceedings. It is also admitted that the said proceedings were initiated only in 2017 and thereafter. Therefore, the question that arises is whether the petitioner’s case for earlier panel years (2013–2014 or 2014–2015) should have been considered, as no disciplinary proceedings were pending as on those dates. 5 NV,J W.P.No.13289 of 2023 8. The settled legal position, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman1, is that the “sealed cover procedure” or withholding of promotion can be resorted to only when the charge memo or criminal prosecution is pending as on the date of consideration by the DPC. If no such proceedings were pending at that time, the officer cannot be denied promotion on a subsequent event. 9. In the present case, there is nothing to indicate that any charge memo was pending prior to 24.03.2017. Hence, the petitioner’s case ought to have been considered for promotion in the earlier panel years, particularly 2013–2014 and 2014–2015, without reference to the later charge memos. The action of the respondents in deferring promotion of the petitioner for those earlier years is thus contrary to the principles laid down in Jankiraman case (supra) and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, with the following directions: a. The action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant 1 (1991) 4 SCC 109 6 NV,J W.P.No.13289 of 2023 Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise without reference to charge memos is declared as illegal and arbitrary; b. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise for the appropriate panel year(s) prior to 2017-2018, without reference to the charge memos issued subsequent to 24.03.2017; c. The respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits, including seniority and notional fixation of pay, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of this order; d. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand dismissed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 29.10.2025 SP 7 NV,J W.P.No.13289 of 2023 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO. 13289 OF 2023 Date: 29.10.2025 W SP