Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010371052026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 19974/2026 Between: 1. SYED BAZED, S/O.SYED MEER, AGED ABOUTSS YEARS, WORKING AS SUB REGISTRAR GRADE-LL, TENALI-WEST, GUNTUR DISTRICT.. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE REGISTRATIONS AND STAMPS, VELAGAPUDI GOVERNMENT OF A.P. SECRETARIAT, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF A P REGISTRATIONS AND STAMPS, VIJAYAWADA,ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF A P REGISTRATIONS AND STAMPS, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the 2 High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the Respondents Respondent here in considering the case of Petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Registrar Grade- 1, on the ground of pendency of ACB Case of 2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14,16 of the constitution of India and direct the Respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Register Grade-1, without reference pendency of ACB case of 2018 by considering the issued in the Go.Ms.No.257. General Administration (Services, C ) Department dated 10.06.1999 and the circular Memo No. 15813/ Services- C/2007, dated 11.09.2007 and to pass such 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 my case to the post of Sub Registrar Grade-1 and consider this case in term of G.o.M.s No.257 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 3 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.19974 of 2026 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in not considering the candidature of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Registrar Grade-I on the ground of pendency of ACB case of 2018 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts in brief are as follows; Petitioner joined as Junior Assistant on 21.01.1995 and later was promoted as Senior Assistant and Sub Registrar Grade-II. On 18.09.2018, while Petitioner was working as S.R.O. Amaravathi, ACB officials conducted raid and basing on the allegation that the Petitioner demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant was suspended vide proceedings dated 20.09.2018. Thereafter reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 11.12.2019. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner now is that, he is due for promotion to the post of Sub Registrar Grade-I, but is not being considered for promotion on account of pendency of the ACB cases. 4 Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed to consider his case without reference to the ACB case. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the Respondents submits that the case of the Petitioner cannot be considered for promotion even according to G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that promotion of individuals facing grave offences would cause a doubt on the integrity of the Department. 5. Heard Sri T.V.S.Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. 6. The State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 for considering promotion of employees facing disciplinary enquiries. The guidelines for consideration of promotion to the officials facing criminal cases were classified into three categories for considering promotion. Paragraph 5(B) thereof is extracted below; “B. Officers who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation can be categorised into the following groups based on the nature of the allegations of charges pending against them or about to be instituted namely:- 5 (i) an officer with a clean record, the nature of charges or allegations against whom relate to minor lapses having no bearing on his integrity or efficiency, which even if held proved, would not stand in the way of his being promoted; (ii) an officer whose record is such that he would not be promoted, irrespective of the allegations or charges under enquiry, trial or investigation; and (iii) an officer whose record is such that he would have been promoted had he not been facing enquiry, trial or investigation, in respect of charges which, if held proved, would be sufficient to supersede him.” 7. The above classification indicates that the promotion can be considered only where the charges against the Charged Officer are minor in nature which do not have a bearing on his integrity. Paragraph 6 of the said G.O., in fact restrains the authority from considering for promotion when the Charge against the employee is with regard to moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty, as it is not in the public interest. The Paragraph 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 6 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 he 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. A combined reading of Paragraphs 5(B) and 6 shows that the individuals facing grave criminal cases on allegations of corruption are not entitled even to be considered for promotion. 9. The right of an employee to be promoted is, at the least, expected to have a clean and unblemished record. One-dimensional sympathy for the employee seeking promotion, without considering the impact on honest employees in the department and society, cannot be said to be in the public interest. An employee facing serious allegations of bribery cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. 7 10. The right to be promoted, though not absolute, cannot be put forth in cases of this nature, where the individual is facing prosecution for grave criminal Charges of bribery. The directions to consider individuals facing serious allegations for promotion would only open another avenue to pursue promotion under the cover of “consider” orders and such an avenue should be nipped in the bud. It is to be noted that there would be inevitable delay in conclusion of criminal cases on account of various factors and there is no magic wand in the hands of anybody to ensure expeditious conclusion. Apart from that, when the Charges against an individual are grave Charges of bribery, such individuals are not entitled to be considered for promotion under G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 as referred supra and in that scenario this Court need not to issue futile writs. 11. In State of T.N. v. E. Rangachari1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set-aside an order of the State Tribunal and Madras High Court for inclusion of an employee for promotion, who was facing a criminal case for demanding bribe as in this case. It was held that an individual can seek promotion after acquittal in a criminal case. 1 (2012) 12 SCC 462 8 12. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in K.V. Ramana Reddy Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police2 after taking note of G.O.Ms.No.257 referred above, refused to give a direction for the individual therein to be considered for promotion as he was facing ACB criminal cases. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below; “We are of the considered view that no direction can be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner straightaway for promotion. The petitioner has to come out clean after being absolved from all the said criminal cases involving moral turpitude. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner in this Writ Petition to direct the respondents to issue order of promotion and order of posting to him in the cadre of Inspector of Police as prayed by him.” 13. In the present case, the allegation against the Petitioner are relating to a trap laid by ACB officials, the Petitioner demanded and accepted the bribe and caught red-handed by the ACB officials. As the Charge against the Petitioner is one relating to illegal demand, it would be inappropriate to give any direction to consider such individual for promotion. 2 W.P.16125 of 2018 dated 19.9.2019 9 14. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 21.07.2026 KLP