D.Murali Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 03.07.2026 Date of uploading : 03.07.2026

¶2

APHC010325492026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3^rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17685/2026

¶6

Between:

¶7

D.MURALI, S/O D ADDA LOHITHASYA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, R/O 1-249,S.C.COLONY, POTHRA KHANDA SOMPETA, SRIKAKULAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 532264.AS

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITSSPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI-522238

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES, FISHERIES DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT-520001

¶12

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in denying promotion to petitioner to the post of Assistant Director of Fisheries on the ground of pendency of disciplinary and criminal proceedings in respect of the ACB trap dated 26.02.2020, and initiated Disciplinary proceedings vide Proc.No.453/A.2/2020 dated 13.04.2023 against the petitioner and charge sheeted under C.C.No.18 of

¶14

2

¶15

2023 on the file of the III Additional District Judge Cum Special Judge for SPE and ACB , Court, Visakhapatnam, as being arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by inordinate delay and contrary to the time limit stipulated in GeneralG.O.Ms.No.679 dated 01.11.2008, G.O.Ms.No.91 Administration ( Ser.C) Department, dated 12.09.2022 and Rule 20 of APCS ( CC and A) Rules, 1991 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and to set aside the departmental proceedings and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to have his case considered and be promoted as Assistant Director of Fisheries with benefits incidental thereto without reference to the Charge Memo issued by the 2^nd respondent vide Proc.No.453/A.2/2020 dated 13.04.2023 on the analogy of the orders passed in similar cases by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice and to pass such other orders.

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC 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 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Fisheries without reference to the Charge Memo issued by the 2nd respondent vide Proc.No.453/A.2/2020 dated 13.04.2023, and C.C.No.18 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District Judge Cum Special Judge for SPE and ACB, Court, Visakhapatnam, on the analogy of the orders passed in similar cases and to pass such other orders.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.P MALLIKHARJUNA RAO

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

3

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.17685 of 2026

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of Respondents in not considering the candidature of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Fisheries on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings vide Proc.No.453/A.2/2020, dated 13.04.2023 and the criminal case in C.C.No.18 of 2023 on the file of the Special Court for ACB & SPE Cases, Visakhapatnam and pleased to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶28

The facts in brief are as follows;

¶29

The Petitioner is working as Fisheries Development Officer (CMU), Visakhapatnam. While so, on 26.02.2020 the ACB officials laid a raid and a crime was registered vide Cr.No.02/RCT/VZM/2020 for the offence punishable under Section under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and a criminal case was registered vide C.C.No.18 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Special Judge for SPE & ACB Court, Visakhapatnam. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.02.2010.

¶30

4

¶31

The grievance of the Petitioner now is that, he is due for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Fisheries, but is not being considered for promotion. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed to consider his case without reference to the criminal case.

¶32

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the Respondents submits that as the case against the Petitioner is regarding corruption and the Petitioner cannot be considered for promotion even according to G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that promotion of individuals facing grave offences would cause a doubt on the integrity of the Department.

¶33

5. Heard the respective counsels.

¶34

The State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 for considering promotion of employees facing disciplinary enquiries. The guidelines for consideration of promotion to the officials facing criminal cases were classified into three categories for considering promotion. Paragraph 5(B) thereof is extracted below;

¶35

5

¶36

“B. Officers who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation can be categorised into the following groups based on the nature of the allegations of charges pending against them or about to be instituted namely:-

¶37

(i) an officer with a clean record, the nature of charges or allegations against whom relate to minor lapses having no bearing on his integrity or efficiency, which even if held proved, would not stand in the way of his being promoted;

¶38

(ii) an officer whose record is such that he would not be promoted, irrespective of the allegations or charges under enquiry, trial or investigation; and

¶39

(iii) an officer whose record is such that he would have been promoted had he not been facing enquiry, trial or investigation, in respect of charges which, if held proved, would be sufficient to supersede him.”

¶40

The above classification indicates that the promotion can be considered only where the charges against the Charged Officer are minor in nature which do not have a bearing on his integrity. Paragraph 6 of the said G.O., in fact restrains the authority from considering for promotion when the Charge against the employee is with regard to moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty, as it is not in the public interest. The Paragraph reads as under;

¶41

6

¶42

“6. The appointing authority should consider and decide that it would not be against public interest to allow ad hoc promotion to the officer concerned and this shall be decided with reference to the charge under enquiry. If the charge is one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then the appointing authority should consider as not in the public interest to consider ad hoc promotion to such charged officer. But, however, if the charge is not a grave one but is a minor one, not involving moral turpitude, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then only in such cases he appointing authority should consider that it would not be against public interest to allow ad hoc promotion because till then his record is clean with reference to ACRS, past punishment and reputation in the department as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and Secretary to Government. The appointing authorities should strive to finalise the disciplinary cases pursuing them vigorously so that within two years the proceedings are concluded and final orders issued.”

¶43

A combined reading of Paragraphs 5(B) and 6 shows that the individuals facing grave criminal cases on allegations of corruption are not entitled even to be considered for promotion.

¶44

7

¶45

The right of an employee to be promoted is, at the least, expected to have a clean and unblemished record. One-dimensional sympathy for the employee seeking promotion, without considering the impact on honest employees in the department and society, cannot be said to be in the public interest. An employee facing serious allegations of bribery cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently.

¶46

The right to be promoted, though not absolute, cannot be put forth in cases of this nature, where the individual is facing prosecution for grave criminal Charges of bribery. The directions to consider individuals facing serious allegations for promotion would only open another avenue to pursue promotion under the cover of “consider” orders and such an avenue should be nipped in the bud. It is to be noted that there would be inevitable delay in conclusion of criminal cases on account of various factors and there is no magic wand in the hands of anybody to ensure expeditious conclusion. Apart from that, when the Charges against an individual are grave Charges of bribery, such individuals are not entitled to be considered for promotion under G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 as referred supra and in that scenario this Court need not to issue futile writs.

¶47

8

¶48

In State of T.N. v. E. Rangachari¹ , the Hon’ble Supreme Court set-aside an order of the State Tribunal and Madras High Court for inclusion of an employee for promotion, who was facing a criminal case for demanding bribe as in this case. It was held that an individual can seek promotion after acquittal in a criminal case.

¶49

Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in K.V. Ramana Reddy Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Police² after taking note of G.O.Ms.No.257 referred above, refused to give a direction for the individual therein to be considered for promotion as he was facing ACB criminal cases. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below;

¶50

“We are of the considered view that no direction can be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner straightaway for promotion. The petitioner has to come out clean after being absolved from all the said criminal cases involving moral turpitude. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner in this Writ Petition to direct the respondents to issue order of promotion and order of posting to him in the cadre of Inspector of Police as prayed by him.”

¶51

1 (2012) 12 SCC 462

¶52

2 W.P.16125 of 2018 dated 19.9.2019

¶53

9

¶54

In the present case, the allegations against the Petitioner are relating to a trap laid by ACB officials and as per the Charge-sheet, with regard to the inclusion of the name of the complainant and other members in the society, the Petitioner demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.32,000/- and caught red-handed by the ACB officials. As the Charge against the Petitioner is one relating to illegal demand, it would be inappropriate to give any direction to consider such individual for promotion.

¶55