Disposed

Sri T.S.A Prasad, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Aug 2023WP/40751/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an interim order in a writ petition concerning police promotion. The High Court directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents, who are then directed to consider his claim for promotion as DSP(Civil) based on orders clearing his pending cases. The petition is disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Permitted to submit representation; respondents directed to consider claim within two months.

Sri T.S.A Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:40751 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri T.S.A Prhsad, S /o Late Radha Krishna fVlurthy, Aged about 48^years, Occ lnspector of Police, Police Control Room, South Zone, Hyderabad^City.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The Director General of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

The'lnspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad,^Telangana State^'

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be} pleased to a writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the Respondents not considering the^{Petitionerfor} Promotion to the post of DSP (Civil) without reference to the G.O.Ms.No.¹⁷⁸ dated 25-03-2009 and its consequential Commissioner of Enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and violatlve of^principles of natural^justice and consequently^declare the petitioner is eligible for the^post of DSP^(Civil).

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2017^(WPMP. NO:50607 OF 20171

¶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^pleasedto direct the Respondents to consider the^petitioner for the^post of DSP^(Civil) without reference of the G.O.t/s.No. 178^dated 25-03- 2009pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of^justice.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶19

Between:

¶20

The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary,^{Home D{lpartment,} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶21

The Director General of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana^State.

¶22

The lnspector General of Police, Hyderabad Range,^{Hyderabad, Telangana} State

¶23

..,PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶24

Sri T.S.A Prasad, S /o Late Radha Krishna Murthy,^{Aged about 48 years, Occ} lnspector of Police, Police Control Room, South Zone,^{Hyderabad City.}

¶25

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circurnstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{maybe pleased to} vacate the interim order dated 04-12-2017 in^{W. P.tt/1.P. No.50607} of^{2017 in} W.P.No.40751 of 2017.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DEEPAK^MISRA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.V. RAMA^{RAO (SPL. GP) /} ASST. GP FOR HOME (SERVICES)

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶31

Writ Petition No. 4O75L of 2OL7

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This Writ Petition is fi1ed seeking the following praye r:-

¶34

"...to issue a wiL order or direction and more partianlarly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decloing that the Respondents not considering the Petitioner for Promotion to the post oJ DSP (Ciuil) tuithout rekrence to the G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 25.O3.2009 and lts consequential Commissioner of Enquiry is illegal, orbitrary and uiolatiue of pinciples of natural justice and consequentlg declare the petitioner is eligible for the post of DSP (Ciuil)."

¶35

Heard Sri Deepak Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home (Service) appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as an Inspector of Police in respondent Nos.2 and 3 Office. While working as Inspector of Police, at Police control room, South Zone, Hyd,erabad, respondent No.3 prepared ad-hoc panel of Inspectors of Police(Civil) for ad-hoc promotions as DSP (Civil) for the Telangana State and accordingly issued a letter dated 03.OT .2OlT calling for objections. In^'the promotion list, his name was placed at Sl.No.1623 and he is eligibie for promotion to the post of DSp

¶37

¶38

(Civil). Hou.ever respondents have not conside red the claim of the petitioner on the alleged ground that two(O2) ACB Cases were pending against him.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after conducting detailed enquiry, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, issued Proceedings vide DO No. 3581 No.L&O/B2 / 1 O 12 / 20 15-20, dated 3O.O5.2O2O hoiding that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not proved. Siimilarly, against the punishment order passed by the Commissioner ol Police, Hyderabad, dated Ol.O9 .2016 and consequential order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 27.O2.2O21, petitioner filed revision petition before the Government and the same was allowed and the impugned punishment orders issuecl against the petitioner were set aside vide G.O.Rt.No. 1372, dated 77.07.2023 and the said order has become final. Hr: further submits that as on today, no cases are pending against the petitioner and inspite of the same, the respondents l:rave not considered the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of DSP (Civil) without any reasons and on the other hand they granted promotron to the juniors.

¶40

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits ttrat as on the date of filing of the Writ^petition, two ACB cases are pending against the petitioner and due to the same, the clairn of the

( (

petitioner was not considered. Petitioner is^{now claiming the} relief pursuant to the orders passed by the^{Commissioner of} Police, Hyderabad City dated 3O.O5.202O^{and G.O.Rt.No.1372,} dated 1 1.O7.2C23 issued by the Government^{and the petitioner} may be directed to submit a representation^{to the respondents} and on such representation,^{the respondents will considerthe} claim of the petitioner in accordance^{with law.}

¶45

¶46

Having considered the rival submissions made by^the respective parties and after^{perusal of the material available on} record, it clearly reveals that petitioner's name^{was placed at} Sl. No. 1623 in the promotion list, and he is eligible^for consideration for promotion to the post of DSP^{(Civil)and his} claim was not considered due pendency of two(02)^ACBcases; during the pendency of this writ^petition, the said cases^were ended in favour of the petitioner through order dated 3O.O5.2O2O passed by the Commission of Police, Hyderabad and G.O.Rt.No. 1372, dated 17.OT .2023 issued by the Government of Telangana, Home^(Services - I) Department, and the petitioner is entitled for consideration for promotion to the post of DSP (Civil).

¶47

For the forgoing reasons, the petitioner iq permitted to submit representation to the respondents within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and on

¶48

¶49

such representation, the respondents are directcd to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of DSP (Civil) in accordance with law by duly taking into consideration of orders passed by the Government vide G.O.Rt.N<t.^1372, dated I ), .O7 .2023 and also the orders passed by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City dated 30.05.2020 within a period of two (02) months thereof.

¶50

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶51

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶52

closed

¶53

SD/-A.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTANIREGISTRAR (-fD //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶54

¶55

To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶56

The Director General of Police,^{Hyderabad, TelanganaState.} 3. The lnspector General^{of Police, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad, Telangana} State

¶57

One CC to SRI DEEPAK MISRA,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶58

Two CCs to SRI M.V.^{RAIVIARAO (SPL. GP), High Court for the State of} Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶59

Two ccs to Gp roR HOME^{(SERVICES),High Court for the state of} Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶60

Two CD Copies BN GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2810812023

ORDER

WP.No.40751 of 2017

1{' S fATe orl
c $ SI:? MI
t..': :,? /Jc

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Sri T.S.A Prasad, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T.S.A Prasad, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thota Venkatesham Vs Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. of Telangana

K. Ushasree Vs The State of Telangana

Narra Priyanka Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

B. Sudarshanam, Vs The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company

Dr. G. Machender Vs The State of Telangana.

T. Bhaskar, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc