Disposed

K Sai Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Jul 2024WP/12571/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Superintendent sought a direction to consider his promotion to Chief Auditor despite a pending ACB FIR, with no charge sheet or articles of charge framed. The Government Pleader stated his candidature would be considered per eligibility and rules. The writ petition was disposed directing consideration under G.O.Ms.No.66.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's promotion to Chief Auditor per eligibility and Rules, considering G.O.Ms.No.66 GAD dated 30.01.1991; no costs.

K Sai Krishna Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Corruption | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

I
V

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12571 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Sai Krishna, S/o. late Sri K. Chandra Sekhara Rao, aged 56 years, working as Superintendent/Auditor, O/o Commissioner of Intermediate Education (CIE), Tadepalli, Guntur District, r/o H.No. 40-25-31, Padamata lanka Maseed Street, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, School Educcation (VIG) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶12

The Commissioner of Intermediate Education State of A.P. Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Auditor on mere pendency of FIR No. 02/RCA-ACB-VJA/2021 dated 10-2-2021 and in the absence of any Charge Memo, as illegal arbitrary and discrimination and violation of Pinciples of Natural Justice, and contrary to the existing Government Orders issued in G.O.Ms.no. 66 GAD (Services.C) Department Dated 30-1-1991, and also

¶15

¶16

contrary to the law settled by this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No. 3315 OF 2019 (DB), dated 23-12020, consequently direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Auditor, without reference to the pending FIR Dated^10-02-2021 in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 66 GAD Department, Dated 30-01-1991, and basing on the same analogy of similar orders passed in W.P.No.28416 of 2022, dated -609-2022 and W.P.No. 5981 of 2021, dated 16-3-2021, and W.P.No. 2661 of 2023, dated 06-02-2024, and pass such

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents consider the representation dated: 22-12-2023 submitted by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Auditor in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 66 GAD Dated: 30-1-1991, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA

¶20

KOTA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶23

¶24

APHC010250122024

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3331] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 12571/2024

Between:

K Sai Krishna

...PETITIONER

AND

...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioner;

¶36

1.RAMALINGESWARA RAO KOCHARLA KOTA Counsel for the Respondent(S);

¶37

1.GP FOR SERVICES III

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocherlakota, learned^counselfor petitioner and Smt.M.Hemalatha, learned Assistant Government^Pleader

¶41

for Services III for respondents.

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that petitioner^while working as Superintendent in the office of Commissioner^{ofIntermediate}

¶43

¶44

Education, was kept under suspension with effect from 14.02.2021 i n terms of Rule 8(2) of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services. (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 by proceedings of the Commissioner of Intermediate-Education dated 18.02.2021, basing upon case in Crime N0.O2/RCA-VJA-ACB/202I under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. He would also submit that petitioner was reinstated into service, pending further proceedings on 15.05.2023 and so far neither charge sheet was filed in criminal case nor articles of charge was framed by the authorities. He would submit that respondent authorities are not considering the petitioner’s case for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66 General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 30.01.1991.

¶45

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services III passed on the instructions of the Commissioner of Intermediate Education vide Lr.Rc.No.OP-1/1349010/2021 dated 25.06.2024 and would submit that as and when promotion is taken up by the Department for the post of Chief Audito (Gazetted), the candidature of the petitioner will be considered as per his eligibility and the Rules in force.

¶46

Thus, as seen from the material available on record coupled with the submission of learned counsel for petitioner, it is clear that neither charge sheef was filed in the criminal case nor the respondent authorities

¶47

¶48

framed articles of charge against the petitioner. The^{writteninstructions} are clear that case of petitioner will be considered for promotion subject to his eligibility as per the Rules.

¶49

Given the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of counsels, directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion as per his eligibility strictly as per Rules taking into consideration^{theG.O.Ms.No.66} General Administration (Services-C) Department dated^30.01.1991. No costs.

¶50

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

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT] REGISTRAR SECfldfJ OFFICER

¶53

To,

¶54