APHC010013482026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 914/2026 Between: 1. NADIPENA RAMARAO ,, S/O APPARAO, AGED 57 YEARS, SANITORY INSPECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT-535001. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, VADDESWARAM GUNTUR DISTRICT-522302. ...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 Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Municipal 2 Commissioner Grade-Ill on premise of pending of C.C.47/2024 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam and F.I.R. No. 07/RCA-ACB/SKL/2022 dated 12.10.2022 on the file of the ACB, Srikakulam Range as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-Ill without reference the pending of the C.C.47/2024 and charges therein, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam and F.I.R. No. 07/RCA-ACB/SKL/2022 dated 12.10.2022 on the file of the ACB, Srikakulam Range IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-Ill without reference the pending of the C.C.47/2024 and charges therein, on the file of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam and F.I.R. No. 07/RCA- ACB/SKL/2022 dated 12.10.2022 on the file of the ACB, Srikakulam Range Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO 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.914 of 2026 O R D E R: The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in not promoting the Petitioner to the post of Municipal Commissioner Grade-III on account of pending of C.C.No.47 of 2024 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam and F.I.R.No.07/RCA- ACB/SKL/2022 dated 12.10.2022 on the file of ACB, Srikakulam Range as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Public Health Officer on 18.09.2003 at Vizianagaram Municipality and later was promoted as Health Assistant. Subsequently, he was promoted as Sanitary Inspector and thereafter transferred as Municipal Commissioner, Palasa, Kasibugga. While Petitioner working as Commissioner, Nagar Panchayat, he was implicated into an ACB trap dated 21.09.2022 and a crime under Section 7(a) & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 was filed on the allegation of demanding bribe and the same was numbered as C.C.No.47 of 2024 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge for ACB cases, Visakhapatnam. Another FIR 4 was also registered vide FIR.No.07/RCA-ACB/SKL/2022 dated 12.10.2022 against the Petitioner on 12.10.2022 under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 was registered, against which no charge sheet was filed as on today. 3. It is also submitted that the Petitioner was suspended vide G.O.Rt.No.736 dated 10.10.2022 issued by Respondent No.1 and later reinstated into service vide G.O.Rt.No.562 MA & UD (Vig.I) dated 29.07.2024. 4. While so, the Respondents had taken up promotions to the post of Municipal Commissioner, Grade-III and as the case of the Petitioner was not being considered, due to the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him, the present writ petition is filed. 5. 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. 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S.Raju, would submit that G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 would not be 5 applicable to the Petitioner as charges against the Petitioner are grave in nature and are relating to corruption. 7. Heard Sri T.V.V.Koteswararao, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Government Pleader for Services-I. 8. 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 pursuing them vigorously so that within two years the proceedings are concluded and final orders issued. 6 9. 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. 10. In the present case, the charge against the Petitioner is under Sections 7(a) and 12 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. 11. This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. 12. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. 1 (2012) 12 SCC 462 7 As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 08.01.2026 KLP