Disposed

Nirmala Babu v. the Mang.Dir.a.P.S.S.C.Corp.Ltd.Hyd.

Telangana HC12 Dec 2012WP/5443/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-promotion due to alleged criminal case. Court held mere investigation pendency does not bar promotion absent specific rules. Directed respondent corporation to consider promotion afresh under new rules within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be considered for promotion afresh under new rules within three months; no reference to pending ACB investigation.

Nirmala Babu Vs the Mang.Dir.a.P.S.S.C.Corp.Ltd.Hyd. — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 5443 OF 2003

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri Srinivas, the learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sanjeev Kumar.A, the learned counsel for respondents.

¶4

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 1812-2012 of the Managing Director and the Vice Chairman of the first respondent Corporation, in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. The said order in substance reads that the petitioner has not been considered for promotion as the Departmental Promotion Committee stated that as the petitioner is involved in a criminal case relating to misappropriation of Government money, his case is deferred.

¶5

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that no criminal case as such is registered in any criminal court against the petitioner and the record only shows that Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) has commenced an investigation against him. The matter was earlier adjourned twice to enable the learned counsel for the respondents to get information as to whether the investigation has been completed and any criminal case has been registered against the petitioner in any court. The respondents’ counsel despite grant of opportunities, could not get the information about actual filing of charge sheet and registration of criminal case against the petitioner for offence or offences relating to alleged misappropriation of Government money. Today also he sought for further time. On the other hand, the learned counsel for petitioner says that no criminal case is pending against the petitioner in any Court and even ACB police themselves have dropped investigation.

¶6

4. It may be noted that the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee which are extracted in the impugned order of the first respondent would read that it has considered the case of the petitioner for promotion, but deferred it only on the ground that a criminal case has been registered by ACB against petitioner and some others and

¶7

it is under investigation. It would be pertinent to note that every case registered and taken up for investigation by police including ACB police need not end up in prosecution by filing a charge sheet and at times police can also close that case for various reasons. Thus it can be said that mere pendency of investigation cannot be a ground to deny promotion unless the service rules specifically provide for such denial. Sri Sanjeev Kumar could not bring to my notice any such rules.

¶8

5. However Sri Sanjeev Kumar stated that subsequently in October 2008, the first respondent Corporation has been merged with the second respondent and new rules have been sent to the Government for approval and as the petitioner has now become a member of the service in the second respondent Corporation, his case has to be considered according to the new rules applicable now to the second respondent Corporation. In the above circumstances, the second respondent Corporation shall now consider the case of the petitioner afresh for promotion without reference to the criminal case which is said to be pending investigation by the ACB police subject to the out come of that investigation provided the petitioner is otherwise eligible for promotion according to the rules and the other criteria prescribed for promotion. The second respondent shall complete the above exercise within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶9

6. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly in the above terms. No costs.

¶10

_____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. 12^th December, 2012. Gvl/Tjmr

Nirmala Babu v. the Mang.Dir.a.P.S.S.C.Corp.Ltd.Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Babu v. the Mang.Dir.a.P.S.S.C.Corp.Ltd.Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Rajeswari Vs The Revenue Divisonal officer, Chairman of

M.P. Rao Vs The Apsrtc

K.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development

Director of Agriculture, Vs a.Appalasuri

Md.Hussain Vs The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, rep.by its

A.Appala Suri Vs The Director of Agril.