Allowed

Sanapala Umapathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2021WP/7536/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a writ petition where promotion to School Assistant was denied due to a pending criminal case and incomplete disciplinary proceedings. The court held that indefinite denial is impermissible when the employee is otherwise eligible and not responsible for the delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to School Assistant (Telugu) as per seniority, subject to the final result of the pending criminal case.

Sanapala Umapathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶3

Writ Petition No.7536 of 2021

¶4

ORDER:

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III.

¶6

The petitioner before this Court is seeking consideration of his case for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Telugu), which has been denied to him only on the ground that there is a criminal case is pending against him.

¶7

This Court has heard Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the impugned order dated 20.03.2021 in the last para clearly states that the promotion is denied as the criminal case is pending. However, she points out that it is mentioned that his case is not feasible consideration as the criminal case is filed against him and disciplinary proceedings also not completed. The contention of the learned counsel is that the charge sheet is filed on 08.11.2019 and till date the trial has not started. As far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, till date no charge memo has issued and no proceedings have been commenced. Relying upon G.O.Ms.No.257 and the other G.Os., the learned counsel argues that the promotion cannot be denied indefinites and that in a number of cases, this bench and coordinate benchs of this Court have already directed the case of such petitioners to be considered for promotion even if there are criminal cases are pending or disciplinary proceedings are

¶8

¶9

pending. It is her further contention that because of the delay, the petitioner should not be penalized and that he is otherwise eligible for promotion and the same is denied only on the ground that the charges are pending against him. She points out that the impugned order does not point out any other blemish or adverse report against the petitioner.

¶10

In reply to this, the Government Pleader argues that the petitioner is not entitled for promotion because of the seriousness of the charges, which are leveled against him. He points out that the petitioner is accused are very grave offence under Sections 420, 323 and 506 of IPC r/w the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. Therefore, he submits that if the petitioner is convicted of the serious offence, he would not be eligible for promotion at all. He relies upon G.O.Ms.No.257 and the classification of the offence to argue that if the charges are proved against the petitioner it could be sufficient to _______. Therefore, his contention that the petitioner is not eligible even for consideration for promotion.

¶11

This Court after hearing both of the counsels, is of the opinion that the law is settle is very well and need not be urged here. Time and again this Court as there are ____ have held if there is any ____ delay for the finalizing of the proceedings be it criminal case or disciplinary proceedings promotions can be affected. In the case on hand also there is no allegation that the petitioner is in any way responsible for the delay. Admittedly, only the criminal case is pending from 2019

¶12

¶13

no progress has been made, there is no parallel adverse enquiry that has been initiated alone are completed. The offence against the petitioner is no doubt that serious in the sense that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 have also been invoke. The question however is whether in view of this delay for the commence and completion of the criminal case should be the petitioner had denied is right to promotion. In the opinion of this Court, as no disciplinary proceedings were stay or commenced the contents of the Government Pleader cannot be really pressed into service as far as the petitioner is concerned. The G.O. for a large part deals with the delay and in the finalization of the departmental proceedings clause (6) also states that the appointing authority should consider if allow adhoc promotion is against the public interest. If the charge is one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then the appointing authority need not given adhoc promotion as it is not public interest. It is also stated that the appointing authorities should strive to finalise the disciplinary cases within a period of two years. If the case on hand to see as mentioned earlier no departmental proceedings are commenced so far, particularly the trial are also as deny the promotion only on the ground that the charge sheet has been filed is in the opinion of this Court not really correct.

¶14

The grounds taken in the counter do not state anything about the petitioner being the cause of delay. Admittedly, he was passed over promotion earlier also. In that

¶15

¶16

view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there should be a direction in this writ petition to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Telugu) as per his seniority immediately. Needless to say any such promotion shall be subject to the final result of the criminal case i.e. pending.

¶17

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in all these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶19

JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶20

Date: 17.09.2021 SDP

¶21

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

¶23

Writ Petition No.7536 of 2021

¶24

Dated: 17.09.2021.

¶25

SDP

Sanapala Umapathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanapala Umapathi v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malladi Chandra Mouli Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. Karimika Sangham Vs Irm Gard

Dr Krishna Murthy Naik Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K. Suresh Kumar, Vs Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences

B.V.A. Krishna Murthy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sanapala Umapathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh