ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. V. Ravichandran, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents. 2. Petitioner is presently working as Deputy Executive Engineer and aspiring for promotion as Executive Engineer. Petitioner alleges that on the ground that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are pending on the very same issue, he is not considered for promotion. In this writ petition, petitioner prays to declare the action of the respondents in initiating and continuing the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of identical set of facts and evidences in C.C. No. 59 of 2019 pending in the Court of I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and further denying promotion/granting in-charge arrangements to the post of Executive engineer on the ground of pending disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings, as arbitrary and illegal and seeks declaration to hold that petitioner is entitled to be considered and to be promoted or given in-charge arrangement as Executive Engineer. 3. Facts as averred in the writ petition would disclose that Air Intelligence Unit of Income Tax Department seized unaccounted cash of Rs. 17 lakhs and bank deposit vouchers for Rs. 25 lakhs on 24.06.2011. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, Income Tax Department imposed tax of Rs. 18,03,010/-. After asserting the facts from the Director General of Income Tax, New Delhi, the ACB authorities enquired into the matter and Crime No. 22/RCO-WKH/2015 was registered under Section 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; ACB conducted investigation and filed final report. C.C. No. 59 of 2019 is pending in the Court of I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad. 4. On the above incident, petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.08.2011. By order dated 02.07.2012, the suspension was revoked. On 25.08.2011, the charge memo was drawn. Petitioner contends that he submitted his explanation to the charge memo on 02.09.2011 but there is no further progress in the departmental proceedings. 5.1 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Rule 20 of TSCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 prescribes time frame for completion of enquiry. Further, in G.O.Ms. No. 679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, Government stipulated time limit of three months to complete disciplinary proceedings in simple cases and six months in complicated cases. 5.1 Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Rule 20 of TSCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 prescribes time frame for completion of enquiry. Further, in G.O.Ms. No. 679, General Administration (Services-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, Government stipulated time limit of three months to complete disciplinary proceedings in simple cases and six months in complicated cases. However, so far there is no progress and petitioner is no way responsible for the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. He would further submit that ACB took its own time to complete the investigation and only on 07.03.2018, Government accorded sanction for prosecution. In other words, for the incident of the year 2011, it took seven years for the ACB to complete investigation, obtain sanction for prosecution and file charge-sheet. Petitioner is no way responsible for this delay. There is no further progress in the criminal case also. 5.2. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that during the years 2017, 2018 and 2019, promotions/in-charge arrangements were affected to the post of Executive Engineer, but benefit was not extended to the petitioner without any justification. He would further submit that once a decision is taken to accord sanction for prosecution, the disciplinary proceedings are deemed to have been dropped and if that being so, merely because the charge memo was issued on 25.08.2011, is no ground to deny promotion. Learned counsel further submitted that as per G.O.Ms. No. 257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, petitioner is entitled for consideration for promotion as there is no progress in the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings. 5.3. He would submit that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570 , if there is inordinate delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings, the claim for consideration for promotion cannot be denied further and employee should be considered for promotion. He would submit that petitioner is due for retirement within the next one year and unless he is considered for promotion and promotion is granted, grave prejudice would be caused to him. 6. Learned Government Pleader would submit that since departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner on grave charges, he is not entitled for promotion. When an employee is facing grave allegation of possessing huge unaccounted money, it is not in public interest to grant promotion. 7. 6. Learned Government Pleader would submit that since departmental proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner on grave charges, he is not entitled for promotion. When an employee is facing grave allegation of possessing huge unaccounted money, it is not in public interest to grant promotion. 7. Before proceeding to consider the submissions on merits, it is appropriate to notice that in the prayer petitioner seeks declaration against initiation and continuing disciplinary proceedings when on identical set of facts and evidence criminal case is pending. He therefore seeks a declaration against continuation of disciplinary proceedings. From the facts noted above, it is seen that disciplinary proceedings were set in motion soon after the incident came to light. By then the crime was not registered by the ACB. The Government accorded sanction for prosecution only on 07.03.2018. Though there was no impediment to continue the disciplinary proceedings, prior to according sanction or after, they were not concluded prior to according sanction for prosecution. However, suffice to note, even according to the averments of petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is no further progress in the departmental proceedings and so far Enquiry Officer is also not appointed. That being so, there is no grievance as on today on the issue of continuing departmental proceedings pending criminal proceedings, even if the allegations are on the same set of facts and based on the same evidence as relied by the ACB in the criminal case. Petitioner is not challenging the validity of disciplinary proceedings or inordinate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, no opinion is expressed on this aspect at this stage. 8. Leaving this part of the prayer aside, the substantive grievance of the petitioner is not granting promotion or in-charge arrangements as Executive Engineer on the ground that disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are pending. 9. Admittedly, disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are pending. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the criminal proceedings are assailed on the ground of inordinate delay in initiation and conclusion. The only issue for consideration is whether on the ground of delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings or delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings, not granting promotion/in-charge arrangements is illegal, arbitrary and whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed in the writ petition? 10. The only issue for consideration is whether on the ground of delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings or delay in conclusion of criminal proceedings, not granting promotion/in-charge arrangements is illegal, arbitrary and whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed in the writ petition? 10. Extensive reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Goyal (supra). It was a case of delay in conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. While Hon’ble Supreme Court was not inclined to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings, but having regard to the fact that there was inordinate delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, by applying balancing process, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed consideration of the petitioner for promotion. However, it is apt to note the directions issued and observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-12. It reads as under: “12. Applying the balancing process, we are of the opinion that the quashing of charges and of the order appointing enquiry officer was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is more appropriate and in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of administration that the enquiry which had proceeded to a large extent be allowed to be completed. At the same time, it is directed that the respondent should be considered forthwith for promotion without reference to and without taking into consideration the charges or the pendency of the said enquiry and if he is found fit for promotion, he should be promoted immediately. This direction is made in the particular facts and circumstances of the case though we are aware that the rules and practice normally followed in such cases may be different. The promotion so made, if any, pending the enquiry shall, however, be subject to review after the conclusion of the enquiry and in the light of the findings in the 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 enquiry. It is obvious that if the respondent does not so cooperate, it shall be open to the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte. If the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aforesaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped.” 11. The respondent shall cooperate in concluding the enquiry. It is obvious that if the respondent does not so cooperate, it shall be open to the enquiry officer to proceed ex-parte. If the enquiry is not concluded and final orders are not passed within the aforesaid period, the enquiry shall be deemed to have been dropped.” 11. In the instant case, if it is only disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner, on account of inordinate delay in disposal of disciplinary proceedings, petitioner may be entitled to similar relief as granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. More particularly having regard to the policy of the Government notified vide G.O.Ms. No. 679, General Administration (Service-C) Department, dated 01.11.2008, fixing time limit to complete the disciplinary proceedings. However, petitioner is also facing criminal proceedings in CC No. 59 of 2019 in the Court of I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Therefore, the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaman Lal Goyal (supra) in the peculiar facts of this case, do not come to the aid of the petitioner. Further, mode of disposal of criminal cases is not same as departmental proceedings. Elaborate procedure is required to be followed. There is huge pendency of cases. Priority is assigned to oldest cases, cases involving Under Trial Prisoners etc. Thus, though speedy trial is a necessity, but the above facts cannot be ignored. Moreover, the criminal Court took cognizance of the offence only in the year 2019 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in conducting trial. At this stage, the issue of why ACB took so much time to file final report and why Government took long time to accord sanction for prosecution cannot be gone into. 12. At this stage it is expedient to consider the policy of the State Government on consideration for promotion of such Officers. In the combined State, prior to bifurcation, the Government formulated promotion policy on consideration of employees/officers facing the disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings and the same is in force in this State. This State has not adopted sealed cover procedure. After consideration of the case by the DPC or by the appointing authority, if the employee is found suitable/fit for promotion, the result of consideration is declared but his actual promotion is differed till the proceedings pending against him are concluded. Government notified its policy vide [G.O.Ms. This State has not adopted sealed cover procedure. After consideration of the case by the DPC or by the appointing authority, if the employee is found suitable/fit for promotion, the result of consideration is declared but his actual promotion is differed till the proceedings pending against him are concluded. Government notified its policy vide [G.O.Ms. No. 424, dated 25.05.1976: The three categories are as under: (i) An officer with a clean record, the nature of charges/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. (ii) An officer whose record is such that he would not be promoted, irrespective of the allegations/charges under enquiry, trial or investigation. (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.] 13. For the purpose of such consideration, Government classified the Officers, who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation, into three categories. According to G.O.Ms. No. 424, dated 25.05.1976, Officers falling into third category should be deferred for promotion pending departmental enquiry/trial/investigation. Most of the litigation is generated in cases falling into third category. 14. On further review of this policy and subsequent orders of the Government, Government notified its fresh policy vide G.O.Ms. No. 257 dated 10.06.1999. Learned counsel for petitioner laid great emphasis on G.O.Ms. No. 257 dated 10.06.1999, more particularly paragraph-5(B) and paragraph-6. 15. The relevant portions of G.O.Ms. No. 257 read as under: “(5) Government also order that with immediate effect the following procedure and guidelines, be followed to consider the employees against whom disciplinary cases or criminal prosecution are pending or whose conduct is under investigation, for appointment by promotion or transfer, to next higher categories. (A) The details of employees in the zone of consideration for promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committees or Screening Committees:- (i) Officers under suspension. (ii) Officers in respect of whom a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending. (iii) Officers in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending. (ii) Officers in respect of whom a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending. (iii) Officers in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal charge is pending. (B) Officers who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation; can be categorized into the following groups based on the nature of the allegations or charges pending against them or about to be instituted namely:- (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. (C) The suitability of the Officers for inclusion in the panel should be considered on an overall assessment based on the record which should include namely:- (ii) The Officers who do not have any adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report, and who have no penalties awarded against them in the entire duration of the post and not merely in the past five years and whose reputation is vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned should be considered as falling under category (iii) of item (B) above. The Officers categorized as under item (iii) of G.O.Ms. No. 424, G.A. (Ser.C) Department, dated 25.5.1976 as mentioned above only should be considered for ad hoc promotion after completion of two years from the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee or Screening Committee Meeting in which their cases were considered for the first time. (6) The Appointment 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 the 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. G.O.Ms. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999 mandates that the concerned authority should bring to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the details of the employees in the zone of consideration for promotion falling under the three categories mentioned there under i.e. (i) officers under suspension; (ii) officers in respect of whom a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and (iii) officers in respect of whom prosecution on criminal charges are pending. Similar categorization of officers as was notified in G.O.Ms. No. 424 is also incorporated in paragraph-5(B) of this G.O. The G.O. enables consideration of claims of officers falling under the third category to grant ad hoc promotion, if, even after completion of two years from the date of the Departmental Promotion Committee or Screening Committee meeting, there was no progress in the enquiry/trial/investigation. However, even this consideration is confined to officers against whom charge leveled is not grave, but is a minor one, not involving moral turpitude, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty. 17. In other words, even if two years time has elapsed after the earlier Departmental Promotion Committee meeting and there is no progress in the case, the officer cannot be considered even to grant ad hoc promotion if charge leveled is either one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty or all of them. 18. Thus, to claim ad hoc promotion, Officer is required to fulfill two conditions, (i) that even after two years from the date of earlier Departmental Promotion Committee meeting, there is no progress in the departmental enquiry/trial/investigation and (ii) that the allegations leveled do not deal with moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duties. 19. As seen from the two Government orders, policy of the Government is clear and unambiguous; that the Government does not intend to grant promotion even on ad hoc basis if the allegations leveled against the employee/officer are grave and that such officer/employee is facing enquiry/trial/investigation. Since, what is alleged against petitioner is holding huge some of unaccounted money while traveling to New Delhi. 20. Since, what is alleged against petitioner is holding huge some of unaccounted money while traveling to New Delhi. 20. It is settled principle of law that an employee has right for consideration for promotion, but has no right to ask promotion as a matter of course [K. Samantaray vs. National Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 9 SCC 286]. One of the important parameters of public service is if an employee is facing disciplinary action/trial on his/her misdemeanor or misconduct-criminal/civil, he/she should not be granted promotion. It is not in public interest to grant promotion to an employee when on serious allegation enquiry/trial is pending against him. Thus, employee is entitled to be considered for promotion and in such consideration even if he is found fit, his promotion can be differed on the ground that disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings are pending. Thus, employee cannot seek consideration for promotion and to grant promotion without reference to pending criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings. 21. In W.P. Nos. 2688 of 2017 and 3576 of 2017, identical contentions were urged by the petitioners therein, and sought for direction to grant promotion without reference to pending departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings. They were facing charges of corruption. The above two writ petitions along with several other writ petitions were considered and common judgment was rendered on 17.04.2017 which was reported as A. Jalender Reddy vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2017 (4) ALD 538 . The batch of cases concern different aspects of non-consideration for promotion pending departmental proceedings/criminal proceedings including on the ground of inordinate delay. 22. This Court reviewed precedent decisions on all aspects concerning grievance of employees against not granting promotion to them on the ground that disciplinary proceedings and/or criminal proceedings are pending. Having regard to the policy of the Government, as noted above, the claims of petitioners in W.P. No. 2686 of 2017 and 3576 of 2017 on the identical issue was considered from paragraphs 64 to 101 of the decision reported in the ALD journal and was rejected. The operative portion of the order in the above two writ petitions reads as under: “105. In W.P. Nos. 2688 of 2017 and 3576 of 2017 admittedly charge-sheets are filed and trial has to be conducted. The operative portion of the order in the above two writ petitions reads as under: “105. In W.P. Nos. 2688 of 2017 and 3576 of 2017 admittedly charge-sheets are filed and trial has to be conducted. Though petitioners contend that they are not responsible for the delay in completion of trial, it is to be noted that registration of crime and continuation of criminal proceedings is not the subject matter in these writ petitions. To maintain sanctity in public service, no person who is facing such serious allegations can be rewarded with promotion. It is not in public interest. The policy of the Government is clear and unambiguous and in terms thereof petitioners are not entitled for promotion even on ad hoc basis when criminal cases are pending. It cannot be said that such employee is remediless. If he comes clean on the charge of illegal gratification, he can claim all benefits from retrospective date. Thus, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. They are accordingly, dismissed.” 23. Further, assigning in-charge arrangements is the prerogative of the competent authority, depending on the exigencies of service. No employee can insist as a matter of right to grant in-charge arrangements. In-charge arrangements do not elevate status and there will be no increase in emoluments. A person working in lower post substantively is asked to hold charge of higher post or another post of same rank as a temporary/stop-gap arrangement. Further, when an employee is facing serious allegations, it is not in public interest to assign duties of higher post even on in-charge basis. Thus, in the discretion of the competent authority if in-charge arrangements are not granted to petitioner to the post of Executive Engineer it cannot be said as illegal exercise of power. 24. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to relief of consideration and granting promotion without reference to pending disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings. The Writ Petition has no merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that if disciplinary proceedings commence pending trial in C.C. No. 59 of 2019 in the Court of I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad, it is open to petitioner to work out his remedies. It is also made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.