Allowed

R.Siva Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Sept 2022WP/16909/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenged denial of promotion due to pendency of an unrelated ACB case without a charge sheet. The High Court followed prior precedents to direct the panel to consider the petitioner's candidature, emphasizing that promotion is not a right but consideration must be fair without arbitrary delays.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to consider petitioner for Deputy Collector promotion complying with G.O.Ms.No.66 and passing appropriate orders within eight weeks.

R.Siva Rao, Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16909 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶5

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶6

“…..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 the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on the ground of registration of Crime in F.I.R No.01/RCA/CIU/ACB/2019, dated 19.02.2019 under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act without there being any filing of Charge Sheet or issuance of Charge Memo as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.66, GAD, dated 30.01.1991 and contrary to the two Supreme Court Judgments referred in the said G.O and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector without reference to the registration of Crime in the interest of justice and pass such other orders....”

¶7

Heard Mr. P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents.

¶8

The precise case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Typist in the year 1987, on promotions, he was promoted as Tahsildar in the year 2009, which is a Zonal Post. The name of the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.16 in the Panel List for the year 2008-09 and some of them were promoted as Deputy Collectors. While he was deputation to A.P. Tourism Authority, as an Estate

¶9

¶10

Officer at Vijayawada, the ACB Officials on 20.02.2019 conducted raid on mere suspicion that the petitioner enriched himself with assets disproportionate to the known sources of income and the check period was treated from 19.02.1987 to 20.02.2019. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody for a period of 41 days, later he was enlarged on bail. As a result the petitioner was kept under suspension and ultimately which was revoked by order dated 09.05.2022 and transferred him as Tahsildar, Office of Revenue Divisional Office, Vuyyuru on 04.06.2022. While the matter stood thus, though crime was registered on 19.02.2019, but no charge sheet was filed and no disciplinary proceedings were pending. But due to pendency of articles of charges or charge sheet the respondents denied the case of the petitioner for promotion, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ petition came to be filed.

¶11

During hearing learned Government Pleader for the respondents vehemently opposed to grant relief as claimed in the writ petition and requested to dismiss the same.

¶12

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since 2019 a case was registered and no charge sheet is filed and no disciplinary proceedings kept pending. Therefore after long lapse of several years, the respondent authorities did not conclude

¶13

¶14

the case in Crime No. 1/RCA/CIU/ACB/2019, dated 19.02.2019 against the petitioner and now denied to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Collector on the ground of pendency of proceedings against the petitioner is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No. 5981 of 2021, dated 16.03.2021, wherein similar issue is cropped up, by following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Union of India Vs. Anil Kumar Sarkar”¹ wherein it was held as follows:

¶16

“However, learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings contended that promotion is not a matter of right and he is entitled for consideration for promotion. There is no dispute with regard to the contention of the Government Pleader and this court is not inclined to issue a direction to promote the petitioner. But, this court can issue a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher cadre subject to satisfying the requirement notwithstanding the surprise check report submitted by ACB, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991”.

¶17

In view of the above settled legal position, this Writ Petition is

¶18

disposed of, in terms of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.5981 of 2021, dated 16.03.2021, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of

¶19

1 2013(4) SCC 161

¶20

¶21

Deputy Collector duly taking into consideration of the G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991 and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶22

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶23

___________________________ DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date: 06.09.2022

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.16909 OF 2022