Allowed

P. Praveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Dec 2023WP/18326/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) without reference to pending disciplinary charges. The court ordered inquiry completion within eight months to balance the right to promotion against disciplinary integrity.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider petitioner for promotion to DPS (Civil) without reference to pending charge memo, subject to post-enquiry review; inquiry to be concluded within eight months.

P. Praveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH^DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA^KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 18326 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

P. Praveen Kumar, s/o.^{P. Butcha Reddy, Agedabout 52 years, working as} lnspector of Police^(Civil), T.S.^{Legislative ASsembly, HyderabadR/o 102' Sri} Nilayam, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Stale of Telangana, rep. by ils^{Principal Secretaryto Government, Home} Department, Secretariat, T.S.^Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Director General of^{Police, Telangana State, Saifabad, Hyderabad.}

¶13

J The Commissioner of Police,^Rachakonda.

¶14

4 The lnspector General of^{Police, Multi Zone-ll(WestZone), Hyderabad,T.S.}

¶15

..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction^{moreparticularly onein} the nature of Writ of^{IVlandamusdeclaring that the Petitioner is entitled lo have} his claim considered and be^{promotedas Deputy Superintendentof Police (Civil)} without reference to the charge^{memo issuedby the 3rd Respondent vide} Memorandum Rc. No. 96/PR-^{l lMaiorlRCKl2Ol T dated 15-12-2020in respect of} allegations relating back to the^{period trcm 2001-2012on the analogy of Orders} passed in similar cases duly holding the action of the^{Respondentsin belatedly} initiating and continuing the disciplinary^{proceedingsand furtherdenying} prornotion to the Petitioner as Deputy Superintendent of^{Police(Civil)on the} ground of pendency of aforementioned charge rnemo dated^{15-12-2020 issued} by the 3rd Respondent, as^{being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, vitiatedby delay,} contrary to the time limit^{prescribed for completion of enquiries vide G.O. Ms. No.} 679 dated O1-1 1-2008 and^{provisions of Rule 2Oand in violationof Articles 14} and 16 of the Constitution of^lndia and set-aside^{the same accordinglyin th€} interest of^justice.

¶17

IA NO: 10F 2023

¶18

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStated in lhe affidavit^{filedin support of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased.to} directtheRespondentstoconsiderthecaseofthePetitionerforpromotiontothe plir oi o"prtv superintendent^{of potice(civit) without referenceto the charge} lremo issued'by lhe^{3rd Respondentvidelvlemorandum Rc' No 96/PR-1/} MajortRCKl2OlT'dated^{15-12-2d20in respect of allegations relating back to the} period from 2OO1-2012 on the analogy^{of Orders passed in similar cases'}

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRI V. RAVICHANDRAN}

¶20

Counsel for the^{Respondents:SRI M.V. RAMARAO}

¶21

(SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER^{FOR HOME)}

¶22

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶23

: !t

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.L8326 of 2o23

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ Petition is fi1ed seeking the following relief

¶28

to issue an appropriatc Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in rhe nature of Writ of Mandamus declartng that the Petitioner is entitlcd to have his claim considered^and bc^{promoted as} Deputy Superintendent o[ Police Civil^without refcrcnce to thc^charge memo issued by thc 3rd Respondent vide Memorandum Rc^No 96l PR I /Major/ RCK/2O17 dated l5l22O2O in respecr of^allegations relating back to the pcriod trom 2OOl2Ol2 on lhe analos/ of Orders passed in similar cases duly holding the action of the Respondcnts in belatedly initiating and continuing the disciplinary^{procccdingsand} fufther denying promotlon to the Petitioner as Deputy Supcrintendent^of Police Civil on the ground o[ pendency of aforementioned^chargememo daten 1512202O issued by the 3rd Respondent as^{berngarbitraryillegal} unjust vitiated by delay contrary to the time limit^{prescribedfor} completion of enquiries vide G O Ms:No 679 dated OII12008^and provisions of Rule 2O and in violation o[ Articles 14 and t6 o[ the Constitution of India and set aside the same accordtngly in^{Lheinterest of} justice and to pass such other otdcr or ordcrs as the Ii6n'ble Court may deem fit and proper in thc circumstances of the casc."

¶29

Heard Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing on^behalf of the petitioner and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned^{Special Government} Plcader appearing on behalf of respondents. Perused the matcrial available on record.

¶30

It has been contended by learned counsel for the^petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-lnspector of^{Police (Civil)} with effect from I 1.06.2001 . Subsequently, he was^promoted as Inspector of Police (Civil) during the year 2O1O and he^is fully eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintcndent^of Police (Civil). While so, a charge memo dated 15.12.2020^was issued by the third respondent for the alleged incident^pertaining to the period from the year 2OO1 to 2012 and a case o[ disproportionate assets was registered against him vide FIR.No. 1/nCB-HR/2012, datcd

¶31

¶32

¶33

05.01-2O12 by Anti Corruption Bureau (A.C.B) and in consequent to that he rvas placed under suspension on 07 .Ol.2Ol2 and later, he rvas reinstatcd into service on 25.11.2013 vide G.O.Rt.No.2229, dated 25.11.2013 and has been working as such till date. Thereafter, thc A.C.B. officials had submitted final report 14.05.2016. It is further contended that the petitioner has made a representation to the Government on I I.07.2016 with a request to drop further action in ACB case. Upon such representation, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.88O Home (Special) Department, dated 20.Og.2O2O, to initiate disciplinary action instead of prosecution. While so, the 3.d respondent has communicated a charge memo vide Rc. No.PR-l / Major /RCK/2017, dated 15.12.2O2O, alleging thar the petitioner has not submitted annual property returns from the year 20i0 to 2OI2 except for the year 201O and that he has purchased the property in his name and in the name of his wifc without obtaining prior permission. For which, the petitioner has submitted explanation dated 03.08.2O2 1 requesting to drop further action. Without considering the same, the respondent-authorities, after lapse of eight monlhs, once again issued memo, dated 28.O5.2022, directing him to submit explanation. On receipt of the same on 13.06.2022, he has submitted a representation to the 3.d respondent inter alia stating that copies of statements of witnesses and documents were not furnished to him along with charge memo. Though, the petitioner has made request on 25.06.2022, the documents relied upon in the charge

memo have been furnished to him alter lapse of more than ten months. Thereafter, he has submitted his detailed explanation on 19.06.2023 inter alia stating that he has been submitting the Annuar Property Returns regularly and due to non-filing of the same by the Ministerial staff in his service book, he is being penalized. He further submits that the disciplinary proceedings and the impugned charge memo are vitiated by inordinate and unexplained delay inasmuch as, the alleged incident pertains to the year prior to 2OO),_2OL2 and that charges were framed on 75.12.2020 and the enquiry is not yet commenced.

¶38

He further submits that panel information was called lor vide proceedings dated 12.05.2023 to the post of Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil) for the panel year 2022_2023 and, rhe name of petitioner was indicated at S1.No.g4. But, he was not given promotion on the ground of pendency of disciplinar5r proceedings. it is further submitted that the juniors i.e. the names included below his name are prornoted as Deputy Superintendents of police (Civil).

¶39

It is further contended that as per G.O.Ms.N o.679, d,aLed, O1.1 1.2008, the Competent Authority, after receipt of the inquiry report shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings within six months of its initiation. Further As per Rure 2o of Telangana state civil services {CC&A)^Rules, 1991 time iimit is prescribed for each stage of enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that it is well settled principte of law that right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right

¶40

¶41

¶42

guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and such a right is being defeated on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings, hence withholding of promotion would amount to imposition of penalty even before the allegations leveled or held proved. Therefore, he submits that the impugned charge memo has to be set aside on the ground of delay and laches. In support of his contentions, he relied on the judgment of Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyalt and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in A.Rajeswara Reddy v. High Court of Andhra pradesh2.

¶43

Per contra, the Learned Special Government pleader contends that in the current panel of Inspectors of police (civil], fit for adhoc promotions as Depury Superintendents of Police (Civil), for the year 2022-23, adhoc promotions have been issued to the eligible Inspectors of Police (Civil), based on the seniority list of Inspectors of police (civil) issued vide memo in Rc.No.26O/El l2Ol4, dated, 73.04.2022 and in terms of G.O.Ms.No.i53, Home (Ser.I) Dept., dated 05.1O.2018. In the said seniority list, the name of the petitioner is shown at Sl.No.653/3714 and he was assigned with notional seniority in the rank of lnspector of Police (Civil) w.e.f.O1.O9.2OlO. Further, at the time of preparation of above panel, as per the remarks furnished by Director General, ACB, vide letter C.No.49 /RPClCl /2023, dated 79.O5.2023, he was involved in a case C.No.S/ RCA-HRG /2012, and final report was sent to Government on 14.06.2016 recommending for prosecution and

¶44

' ( 1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases S7O

¶45

'^{zor o} 1+1^{nLr 374 (DB)}

¶46

,,q

¶47

departmental action. Upon such recommendations, the Government also issued orders dated. 20.08.2020 for departmen[al action and rhe departmental enquiry is still pending. It is further submitted that a major P.R. is pending vide Memorandum Rc.No.96/ pRI / Major/ RCK /2017 , d,ated I5.|'2.2O2O of Commissioner of Potice, Rachakonda on the ground that he failed to submit Annual Property Returns to the Department during his entire service except for the year 2O 10 and he has not obtained permission for acquiring immovable properties mentioned therein. l{e further submitted that r.r,hen his name came into the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civit) in the current panel year 202223 and the Departmental Promotion Committee which met on 20.06.2023 examined the case of the petitioner and did not recommend his name for inclusion in the panel of Inspectors of Police, fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) for the current panel year 2022-2023 on the ground of pendency of departmcntal proceedings. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed his written statement on 19.06.2023 to the charge memo and an Enquiry O{ficer has been appointed to enquire into the charges vide R. O. No.203/ 2O23, dated 15.07.2023 issued by Inspector General of Police, Multi Zone-l| , Hyderabad.

¶48

This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective Counsel.

¶49

¶50

,-.1

¶51

A perusal of the record^{would discloses that while the petttroner} was working as the^{Inspectorof Police, the ACB oflicialsregistereda} case against him^{on the ground of possessing disproportionateassets} in FIR.No.1/ACB-HR/2O^{12, dated 05.O1.2012.Tlne record further} discloses that on^{the representationmade by the petitioner'the} Government issued^{orders videG.O.Rt.No88O, dated20'O8 '2O2OLo} initiate disciplinary^{proceedings instead of prosecution'Admittedly' the} juniors of the petitioner were^{promotedignoring his case on the ground} that disciplinary^{proceedingsare pending against him' The record} further discloses on^{the allegation that he failed to submit annual} returns to the department^{during his entireserviceexcept for the year} 2O10. For which, a^{chargememowas issued on 15'12'2020 with an} inordinate delay'^{Further, though,an enquiryofficer was appointed on} 15.O7.2023, the^{enquiryis not yet commenced'As per G O'Ms'No'679'} dated O i^. I¹ .2OO8,^{thetime limitprescribed forconcludingthe} discipiinary^{proceedingsis maximumperiodof six months Therefore'} in the present case,^{admittedly, charge memo was issuedon} I5.12.2O2O, though^{anenquiry ofltcer has been appointed' the} disciplinary proceedings^{have not yet been commenced'}

¶52

g. At this^juncture, it^{is relevant to extractthe law laid downby the} Apex Court in Chamon^{Lal Gogal'scase (1 supra) at para Nos'l1 and} 12, which is as under:

¶53

The prilciples^{to bcborne in mind in this behalfhave beenset} out by a Constitution^{Bench of this Courtin A R. Antulayv' kSNayak} (199i) I SCC 225 :^{1992 sCC (Cri) 931. Thoughthesaidcase,pertained}

¶54

)

¶55

¶56

ro criminal prosccution, the principles enunciated tlrcrein are broadly applicable to a plc'a of delay in taking the disciplinary proccedings as rvell. In paragraph 86 of the judgrnent, this Court rnentioned tlrc propositions ernerging from^(he several decisions considered therein and observed that^"ultirnately lhe court has to balance and rvcigh the several and determine rclcvant factors balancing test or balancing process - irr caclr case rvhcthcr the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case". It has also becn held that, ordinarily speaking, where the court corlres to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of the accused has been infringed, the charges. or the conviction, as the case may be- will be quashed. At the same timc, it has been observed that that is not the only coursc opcn to the courl and that in a given case, the nature of the offer)ce and othcr circumstarrces rnay be such that quashing of the proccedings nray not be in thc interest ofjustice. ln such a case, it has been observed, it is open to the coun to nrake such other appropriate order as it findsjust and equitable in the circumstance ofthe case.

¶57

¶58

Applyiug the balancing process, we are of the opinion that the quashing of charges and of the order appointing enquiry officer was rrot warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is more appropriate and in thc interest ofjustice as well as in the interesl of adrninistration that the enquiry rvhich had proceeded to a large extent be allorvcd to be conrpletcd. At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and wilhout taking into consideration the charges or the pcndency of thc said enquiry and il he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately. This direction is made in the particular facls and circumstances of the case though we are aware that the rules and practice normally lollowed in such cases may be different. The promotion so rnadc, if any, pending the elquiry shall, however, be subject [o review after the conclusion of ihe enquiry and in the light of the findings ifihe enquiry. It is also directed that the enquiry against the respondent shall be concluded within eight months from today. The respondent shall cooperate in concluding the €nquiry. lt is obvious that if the respondent does rrot so cooperatc, it shall be open to the enquiry officer to proceed ex panc. lf the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aloresaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped.

¶59

I I

¶60

[n view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Court has to balance and weigh the several relevant factors, balancing test or balancing process and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has be en denied in a given case. Admittedly, in the instant case, though the charge memo was issued on 15.12.2O2O and an enquiry olficer was appointed on I5.07.2023, the enquiry has not

¶61

¶62

¶63

yet been^{commenced'Therefore' inview of thefacts and} circumstances^{of the case' the writ petition is disposedof witha} direction^{to the respondentsto consider the case of the petitioner lor} promotion^{tothe post of Deputy Superintendentof Police(civil)} without^{reference to charge memodatcdl5'12'2O2O issued by the 3'd}

¶64

respondent

¶65

No Miscellaneouspetitionspending,ifany,shallstandclosed.

¶66

costs

¶67

,rrRuEcoPY/,^{^t"?"fi:f::j:H}

To,

BN GJP

f I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2811212023

ORDER

WP.No.18326^{ot 2023}

¶78

y{ E S TA IA
q
oo 2 4 JAN 2024 (,)
.i.,

DL P (-c

¶79

DISPOSTNG^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

¶80

a Gtr"9' 9a---"' -r-r\fr

P. Praveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Praveen Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damera Kavitha Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Nageswara Rao Amanchi Vs State of Telangana

Dr. Ch. Vamseedhar, Vs State of Telangana

Kankata Komuramma, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

B. Lalitha Vs The District Collector

C.Mohan Vs The State of Telangana