Shaik Hussain Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

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

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 284 OF 2025

¶6

Between:

¶7

Shaik Hussain, S/o. Madina Saheb, Aged 59 years, Occ: Inspector of Police, V.R., Visakhapatnam Range, R/o Flat No 502, Imperial Residency, Midhilapuri VUDA Colony, Madhurawada Visakhapatnam 530041, Visakhapatnam.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, A.P. Secretariat Building Velagapudi, Amaravati,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶11

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Managalagiri, Guntur District.

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not including the petitioner's name in memo vide R.C.NO.1354/G3/2024 dt.26.12.2024 for consideration of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the post of Circle Inspector of or Police is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents^{toconsiderthecaseofthe} petitioner and effect the promotion as a Dy.SP in favour of the petitioner forthwith in the panel year i.e., 01.09.2024 to 31.08.2025

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to effect promotion to the petitioner as Deputy

¶16

Superintendent of Police from the post of Circle Inspector^ofPoliceand by including the name of the petitioner in the above memo vide R.C.NO.1354/G3/2024 dt.26.12.2024 without reference to any proposed departmental action against the petitioner in the interest of justice pending disposal of writ petition

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: Order

¶18

tr

¶19

APHC010005242025

¶20

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

¶21

[3310]

¶22

FRIDAY. THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO: 284/2025

Between:

Shaik Hussain

...PETITIONER

AND

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

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia}

¶37

seeking the following relief;

¶38

to issue an appropriate writ order direction more particularly^one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of^{therespondents} in not including the petitioner’s name In memo vide R.C.No.1354/G3/2024 dated 26.12.2024 for consideration of promotion to the post^{ofDeputySuperintendent} of Police from the post of Circle Inspector of Police^{isillegalandarbitraryand} consequently direct the respondents to consider the^{caseofthepetitionerand} effect the promotion as a Dy.SP in favour of the petitioner^{forthwithinthepanel} year i.e., 01.09.2024 to 31.08.2025 and pass such other^{orderorordersasthis} Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the^{circumstancesofthecase.”}

¶39

^

¶40

The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner^was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1991,^{thereafterpromotedas} 2008 and working in Visakhapatnam Range. Inspector of Police in the year vide Memo No.C.No.24/PR.2013, dated 19.02.2024 While so, a charge memo was issued by the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam^onthealleged entry of police tips (bribe) were noticed by the ACB in the note book of Grandhi Ganesh Liquor Syndicate Associates of Visakhapatnam.^Thoughan oral enquiry held in favour the petitioner, the Enquiry^{Officerreportedthat} not proved. Basing on the same, the charges against the petitioner are disciplinary authority issued proceedings vide DO.No.888/2020 C.NO.24/PR/2013 dated 20.11.2020. In view of the starring^chargememos against the petitioner, the respondents have been denying^{hispromotionto} the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Aggrieved by the^same,the W.P.No.11080 of 2018 before the Hon’ble High Court petitioner herein filed and the same was disposed directing the respondents therein to consider the the respondents willfully disobeyed the orders of petitioner case. However, this Court and not considered the case of the petitioner^{forpromotionand} many juniors to the petitioner were promoted. Having left no other option, the petitioner made a representation to the 1"' respondent^{alongwithdocumentary} evidence to close the said charge memos. Accordingly,^{thesamewereclosed} by the competent authority. While things stood thus,^{therespondentsnow} R.C.NO.1354/G3/2024, dated 26.12.2024 seeking issued a memo vide of effecting promotions for panel year i.e., information for the purpose 01.09.2024 to 31.08.2025. But surprisingly, the petitioner’s name/candidature was not even included and called for without assigning any reasons. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Governmenf Pleader for Services - 1 appearing for the^respondents. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though^the charge memos issued by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner were

¶41

closed, the action of the respondents in not including the petitioner’s name in memo vide R.C.No.1354/G3/2024 dated 26.12.2024, is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

¶42

Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing for the respondents has furnished a copy^{ofthewritteninstructions} issued by the Chief Administrative Officer vide Rc.No.1354/G3/20 23 dated 31.12.2024, and submits that the petitioner’s name was also included in the selection list for promotion and his name was shown in the serial No.5. He further submits that the petitioner filed the present writ petition on mere apprehensions, as such, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. In view of the above submissions, this Court deems fit to dispose of the writ petition, at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsels, while directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for panel year i.e., 01.09.2024 to 31.08.2025, without reference to the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings in Memo No.18(1767756)/SC.A/A2/2016-6, dated 16.03.2024 of Home Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, against the petitioner

¶43

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed^{of.Thereshall} be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands Sd/-M. SRINIVAS assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SEC^r^ OFFICER

¶45

closed.

¶46

To, -1 Tho PrinHnal Secretarv State of Andhra Pradesh,^{HomeDepartment,A.P.} District. I ?ro gg 5. Three CD Copies

¶47

Note: The Words “without ''®^®'’®[^'l®Q,A‘^Qyy50wscAfA2/2(Tl6-6,^dated16- departmental proceedings in Qf Andhra Pradesh, against the place of earlier order which was dispatched onl 0-01-2025. ^ Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶48

HIGH COURT

¶49

DATED: 10/01/2025 24/01/2025

¶50

AMENDED ORDER

¶51

WP.No.284 of 2025

¶52

OF AND^
5^’ 2 7 JAN 2025 B
Current Section
%

¶53

DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Shaik Hussain v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Hussain v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Murali Krishna Constructions Vs the State of Ap

R Raghupathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N Rajasekhar Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Florence College of Nursing Vs the State of Ap

Shaik Reena Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Prem Kumar Jenna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh