Partly allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. B.Adinarayana

Telangana HC13 Mar 2014WP/6655/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order directing the Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the applicant for Inspector of Police promotion, mandating strict adherence to specific Police Manual rules and G.O guidelines regarding officers facing criminal or departmental proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Modified the impugned order to direct the DPC to consider the applicant's case duly noting relevant guidelines within three months.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.6655 of 2014

¶4

O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated 14.11.2013, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in O.A.No.10186 of 2012 with V.M.A.No.455 of 2013, whereunder and whereby, the interim order dated 04.01.2013, passed by the Tribunal at the time of admission of the said Original Application, was made absolute.

¶6

2. There is a property dispute between two parties. The applicant is not directly connected to the dispute and the grievance of those parties is that he intervened in the dispute and when they gave a complaint, it was registered as a crime against him and as such, he filed the Original Application before the Tribunal. In the said Original Application, the Inspector General of Police filed the counter stating that the Sub Inspector of Police is facing trial in Cr.No.10 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 342 & 347 I.P.C. and Cr.No.11 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 451 & 427 I.P.C. of C.I.D Police Station, which are being tried as C.C.No.54 of 2012 before the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. At the time of admission of the Original Application, the Tribunal passed an interim order on 04.01.2013 and it reads as follows:

¶7

“…….3. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for promoting to the post of Inspector of Police, in the ensuing DPC, without reference to the pendency of CC.No.54/2012 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, which is not connected with the discharge of his official duties.”

¶8

3. It is stated by the Government Pleader for Services-I that in respect of the charge that there is exhibited gross dereliction of duty in registering and investigating a case under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act, not informed to his superiors about registration of case and interfered in civil dispute, the applicant was found guilty in the departmental proceedings and was imposed punishment of postponement of increments for a period of two years without effect on future increments and pension. However on appeal, the said punishment order has been set aside by the Inspector General of Police by proceedings dated 18.10.2012 and prayed to set aside the order in O.A.No.10185 of 2012.

¶9

4. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Caveator is that no articles of charges are pending against the applicant in any departmental proceedings. But, there is no factual foundation on this aspect and that has to be taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

¶10

5. G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999, provides guidelines for consideration of the employees, who are facing disciplinary enquiries in regard to the appointment by promotion or transfer to higher categories. Para 5(B) of the said G.O reads as follows: 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:-

¶11

(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 standin the way of his being promoted;

¶12

(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

¶13

(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.

¶14

So, from the above guidelines, it is clear that when an officer is facing criminal charge or criminal trial, the promotion has to be given considering the suitability of the officer for inclusion in the panel. Further, as per Order 74 Rule 2 of the A.P.Police Manual Part-I, Volume-I he should not be facing any departmental enquiry for grave charges or involved in any investigation/enquiry or trial into a criminal case against him or a regular enquiry or investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau or Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. Simply because a person is involved in the case, it does not mean that he is debarred from getting promotion. It depends upon the nature of allegations levelled in the criminal case and also the allegations touching upon his integrity. So, all these facts have to be taken into consideration for giving promotion. Even from the above police orders, when a person is involved in the grave charges, then only he is not fit for promotion. So, these aspects have to be taken into consideration by the concerned Departmental Promotion Committee.

¶15

6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is modified directing the petitioners to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of the Inspector of police by the Departmental Promotion Committee duly taking note of the guidelines issued in the G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999 and also Order 74 of A.P.Police Manual Part-I Volume-I. Further, the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider whether Order No.74 of A.P.Police Manual Part-I Volume-I is applicable to the case of the unofficial respondent herein or not and they shall take appropriate decision accordingly. The said exercise shall be completed within

¶16

a period of three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶18

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶19

_______ JUSTICE ANIS

¶20

Date: 13.03.2014 sr

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. B.Adinarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh v. B.Adinarayana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Chandra Mohan Rao Vs Dist Collector Rr Dist and 2 Ors.

D. Bhaskar Kumar, S/o. Joseph Vs Y. Narayana Rao, S/o. Y. Venugopal

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Sri S.H.R.Naqui, Asst.Research Officer (Retired)

Dr. T.G.K.Murthy, Vs Union of India

The commissioner of Backward classes,Andhra Pradesh Vs B.Ravi Chandra

The Government of Andhra. Pradesh rep.by its Vs Mukundo Dotal, S/o. Arjuno Dolai