Peruru Vijay Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237

¶12

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KURNOOL RANGE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. - 518002

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KADAPA DISTRICT, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT-516001

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

2

¶16

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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the proceedings in D.Dis.No.03/207 /2026 in R.O.O.No.353/2026, dated 13.05.2026 issued by the Respondent No.2 in Sub-Inspector of Police Armed Reserved not promoting the petitioner as despite completion of all the requirements in Rc.No.C3/1588/2025 , dated 27.03.2026 as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, erroneous, high handed, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14 and 21 of The Constitution of India and consequently declare that by the Respondent No.2 vide D.Dis.No.C3/207/2026 in R.O.O. No.353/2026, dated13.05.2026 in so far as the petitioner concern the same and pass such other orders.

¶17

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶18

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 dispense with presenting the above writ petition with the xerox copy of the impugned order issued by the Respondent No.2 vide D.Dis.No.C3/20 7/2026 in R.O.O. No.353/2026, dated: 13.05.2026 for the time being and pass such other orders.

¶19

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

¶20

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 leased to direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to promote the petitioner as Sub- Inspector of Police who completed the conditions enumerated in C.No.C3/1588/2025, dated: 27.03.2026, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such other orders.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.A K KISHORE REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

Whether the order is :

¶27

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

¶28

3

¶29

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.18694 of 2026

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the Proceedings in D.Dis.No.C3/207/2026 in R.O.O.No.353/2026, dated 13.05.2026 issued by Respondent No.2 in not promoting the Petitioner and to declare the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

In the present case, the Petitioner is working as Head Constable and is due for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, Armed Reserved. The Petitioner was sent for pre-promotional training as Sub-Inspector of Police Armed Reserved along with 44 others and had also qualified in the departmental examinations. However, the Petitioner was not promoted though other individuals were promoted on the ground that the criminal cases were pending against him. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the Respondents would submit that the Petitioner is not entitled to be considered for promotion as the charges framed against him in the criminal case are grave in nature. It is further submitted that promotion is not a matter of right. Unless the individual has clean record promotion is impermissible, especially for selection posts, which require more responsibilities.

¶34

4

¶35

4. Heard the counsels.

¶36

As mentioned above, two criminal cases were registered against the Petitioner i.e., C.C.No.136 of 2025 and C.C.No.1958 of 2024. In C.C.No.136 of 2025, the Petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.5 and is being prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 384, 386, 120-B IPC R/w 34 IPC. In the said case, the allegation is that the Petitioner and Accused No.6 i.e., ASI (Civil) assured and instigated A.2 and A.3 that they will stand behind them in all respects of finance, influence, police cases etc., in the dispute of A.2 to A.4 with L.W.6. In the said process, L.W.1, who is the Supervisor of L.W.6, was way-laid on 26.11.2023 and was attacked by A.1 to A.4.

¶37

The other criminal case C.C.No.1958 of 2024 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 386 R/w 34 IPC, wherein the Petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.7. In the said case, the allegation is that one Kothamasi Bhaskar Rao was attacked by A.1 to A.5 therein and they have also extorted the keys of bus bearing No. AP/UG.8524 and cash of Rs.13,400/- on the instigation of A.6 and A.7 i.e., Petitioner and another and they said that A.6 and A.7 will look after the cases filed against them as they are from the Police Department.

¶38

5

¶39

The State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (Services-C) Department, 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;

¶40

“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:-

¶41

(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;

¶42

(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

¶43

(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.”

¶44

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

¶45

6

¶46

No.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. Paragraph No.6 thereof reads as under;

¶47

“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.”

¶48

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

¶49

7

¶50

An employee seeking 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 cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently.

¶51

The Petitioner being member of a displaced police force should be a role model for the citizens, but on the contrary is facing prosecution for grave criminal charges of serious allegations. Promoting such individuals i.e., giving them more power and position in the department, would amount to normalising wrong doings. Promotions are denied to individuals facing allegations as deterrence to the employees and if deterrence is erased by promotions to such individuals, one cannot expect discipline even from uniformed forces like the police.

¶52

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

¶53

8

¶54

is no magic wand in the hands of anybody to ensure expeditious conclusion. In the Judgments relied upon by the Petitioner, no principle of law is laid for this Court to follow.

¶55

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. It was held that an individual can seek promotion after acquittal in a criminal case.

¶56

Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in K.V. Ramana Reddy v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police²

¶57

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 Judgment is extracted below;

¶58

“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.”

¶59