Allowed

Ainaparthi Satyanandam v. A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC28 Dec 2020WP/25300/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held in writ petition under Article 226, the Court directed the respondent authority to consider the petitioner's candidature for promotion to Deputy Executive Engineer, ruling that pendency of criminal proceedings is not a bar per Service Regulation 3(B) and following a similar earlier order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be considered for promotion to Deputy Executive Engineer (ADE) if eligible, notwithstanding pendency of criminal case.

Ainaparthi Satyanandam Vs A.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.25300 OF 2020

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of this petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (ADE) in APEPDCL, in the existing vacancy on account of pendency of Cr.No.91 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is contrary to the Regulation 3(B) of (APSEB) APEPDCL Service Regulations and denial of promotion, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer (ADE) in APEPDCL.

¶4

Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Metta Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL.

¶5

The main grievance of the petitioner is that he is eligible for promotion as Deputy Executive Engineer (ADE) in APEPDCL possessing requisite qualification, but on account of pendency of PRC.No.8 of 2018 before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District in connection with Cr.No.91 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the promotion to this petitioner to the next category i.e., Deputy Executive Engineer (ADE) is denied. According to the petitioner, Regulation 3(B) of (APSEB) APEPDCL Service Regulations

¶6

¶7

is relevant regulation to deal with the promotion. When allegations or complaints are pending there shall be no bar for consideration of promotion to the next category according to Service Regulation 3(B) of (APSEB) APEPDCL Service Regulations, thereby mere pendency of PRC.No.8 of 2018 before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District in connection with Cr.No.91 of 2016 registered for various offences referred above is not a bar and thereby denial of promotion is illegal and requested to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s candidature for promotion to the next category i.e., Deputy Executive Engineer (ADE) in APEPDCL.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Order in W.P.No.18068 of 2020, dated 08.10.2020 whereby a similar question came up before this Court and this Court issued a direction as claimed similar to the claim of this petitioner. On the strength of the same Order learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to issue a similar direction. However, Sri Metta Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for APEPDCL requested to pass appropriate orders to consider the candidature of this petitioner to the promotion, if he is otherwise eligible.

¶9

Though the petitioner is eligible for being promoted to the next category i.e., Deputy Executive Engineer (ADE) but only a reason for denial of promotion is pendency of criminal case against this petitioner. But, as seen from the material on record entire investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District which is registered as PRC.No.8 of 2018 in connection with Cr.No.91 of 2016 for the offences punishable under

¶10

¶11

Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Though serious allegations were made in the charge sheet, the entire material annexed to the charge sheet is not placed on record for the reason to deny promotion to the petitioner. However, as per the Service Regulation 3(B) of (APSEB) APEPDCL Service Regulations the allegations or complaints against an employee shall not be a bar for considering his candidature for promotion. Therefore, mere pendency of FIR or PRC before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District is not a bar, in view of Service Regulation 3(B) of (APSEB) APEPDCL Service Regulations.

¶12

A similar question came up before this Court in the earlier W.P.No.18068 of 2020 whereby this Court issued a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer without reference to FIR. The petitioner therein was allegedly junior to this petitioner in seniority list and when he was directed to be considered for promotion, the petitioner herein who is similarly situated may also be considered in the same lines.

¶13

In view of the Order passed in the earlier W.P.No.18068 of 2020, dated 08.10.2020 and Service Regulation 3(B) of (APSEB) APEPDCL Service Regulations referred above the petitioner’s candidature is liable to be considered for his promotion i.e., Deputy Executive Engineer (ADE) not withstanding pendency of crime or PRC before VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District.

¶14

¶15

Upon considering the rival contentions, perusing the material available on record and following the principle laid down in the earlier Order in W.P.No.18068 of 2020, dated 08.10.2020 and Regulation 3(B) of (APSEB) APEPDCL Service Regulations, I deem it appropriate to issue a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the candidature of this petitioner for being promoted as Deputy Executive Engineer (ADE) if he is otherwise eligible for being appointed as Deputy Executive Engineer notwithstanding pendency of crime and PRC in accordance with law, accordingly respondents 1 and 2 are directed.

¶16

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶18

__________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

Date: 28.12.2020

¶20

Note: Issue CC by 30.12.2020 B/o. IS

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶23