ORDER : M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the proceedings in Rc. No. 80/2018/A2, dated 25.09.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, requesting to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Excise Sub-Inspector without reference to the charge Memo dated 14.09.2018 and criminal case in C.C. No. 200 of 2019 in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 257, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 10.06.1999. 2. The facts leading to the case are that the petitioner joined in service on 23.01.2008 as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds, he joined at Tenali, Guntur District and working as such with utmost satisfaction of the superiors without any complaints whatsoever. The 3rd respondent issued provisional seniority list on 19.01.2012 in which the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 204, thereafter the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 21.12.2013 wherein final seniority list was issued in which the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 203. 3. While so, on 07.02.2018 a FIR was issued to the petitioner vide PR No. 6/2018 and the Excise Department filed a case against the petitioner along with others and the petitioner was shown in the said FIR as Accused No. 11. The 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 07.02.2018 wherein the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground of liquor was detected vide PR No. 06/2018 of Repalle Prohibition and Excise Station. The 4th respondent addressed a letter to the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Tenali, dated 15.02.2018, wherein it is clearly stated that the suspension is w.e.f., 07.02.2018. 4. The 4th respondent issued suspension revised proceedings dated 20.03.2018 and the same was confirmed w.e.f., 07.02.2018. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent issued the Articles of charges on 14.09.2018 in which one charge was framed and the petitioner made a representation requesting for reinstatement on 20.09.2018. An enquiry officer was appointed vide proceedings dated 29.09.2018. The 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 03.10.2018, wherein the petitioner was reinstated into service pending disciplinary case and criminal case. The Department has also filed a case which is registered as C.C. No. 200/2019 pending on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge at Repalle, Guntur District, in which the petitioner was shown as Accused No. 11. 5. The 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 03.10.2018, wherein the petitioner was reinstated into service pending disciplinary case and criminal case. The Department has also filed a case which is registered as C.C. No. 200/2019 pending on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge at Repalle, Guntur District, in which the petitioner was shown as Accused No. 11. 5. As the petitioner was not promoted and his juniors were promoted to the post of Excise Sub-Inspector, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent and his representation was disposed of vide order in Rc. No. 80/2018/A2, dated 25.09.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner observing as follows:- "Accordingly, the individuals at Sl. Nos. 204 to 219 in the seniority list of JAs were promoted as P&ESIs as per their eligibility vide reference 5th cited and the name of Sri T. Kiran Kumar was deferred for promotion in light of the following Government Orders. i) G.O.Ms. No. 66, GA (Services. C) Dept, dt. 30.01.1991. ii) G.O.Ms. No. 424, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 25.05.1976. iii) G.O.Ms. No. 257, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 10.06.1999." 6. It is now contended that the proceedings are illegal as the Government Order itself permits ad hoc promotion to the Junior Assistants in Prohibition and Excise Department and drawn the attention of this Court to the G.O.Ms. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999. On the basis of this G.O., the learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of this petitioner for promotion. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court with reference to issue a direction to consider the candidature of this petitioner for promotion notwithstanding the pendency of disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal case in C.C. No. 200/2019 pending on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge at Repalle, Guntur District. 7. It is further contended that denial of promotion to this petitioner is nothing but discriminatory and it is an arbitrary act of the respondents. In fact, the said G.O. permits ad hoc promotion to the petitioner when the enquiry is not completed within two years. At this juncture, the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Excise Sub-Inspector and requested to issue a direction as stated supra. 8. In fact, the said G.O. permits ad hoc promotion to the petitioner when the enquiry is not completed within two years. At this juncture, the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Excise Sub-Inspector and requested to issue a direction as stated supra. 8. During the course of hearing, Sri R. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly contended that the action of the respondents in rejecting the representation vide proceedings in Rc. No. 80/2018/A2, dated 25.09.2019 is contrary to G.O.Ms. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999 which was refereed in the proceedings as one of the grounds to reject the request of this petitioner. When the G.O. permits the department to consider the candidature of this petitioner as Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, denial of promotion is a grave arbitrariness and requested to set aside the same while directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise supported the proceedings impugned in this Writ Petition in all respects. 10. It is undoubtedly true that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as Junior Assistant and reported to duty in Tenali, Guntur District in the Prohibition and Excise Office and discharging his duties for some time, thereafter a crime was registered against several persons and this petitioner is arrayed as Accuse No. 11 in Cr. No. 06/2018, Repalle Prohibition and Excise Station, Guntur District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34(a), 36(1)(b)&(c), u/s. 34(c)&(h), u/s. 37-A of A.P. Excise Act & Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of A.P. Denatured Spirituous Rules 1971, Sections 11, 13, 14 and 15 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, Sections 34, 35 and 50 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. 11. The petitioner was an employee in the Prohibition and Excise Department at Tenali by the time the said crime was register. Now, he is working at Sattenapalli, Guntur District in the same capacity, his name was shown at Sl. No. 203 in the seniority list, but the individuals from Sl. Nos. 204 to 219 were considered and they were promoted as Sub-Inspectors depending upon their eligibility vide proceedings in Rc. No. 80/2018/A2, dated 25.09.2019 and the candidature of this petitioner was not considered in view of G.O.Ms. No. 66, GA (Services. C) Dept, dt. 30.01.1991, G.O.Ms. No. 424, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 25.05.1976 and G.O.Ms. Nos. 204 to 219 were considered and they were promoted as Sub-Inspectors depending upon their eligibility vide proceedings in Rc. No. 80/2018/A2, dated 25.09.2019 and the candidature of this petitioner was not considered in view of G.O.Ms. No. 66, GA (Services. C) Dept, dt. 30.01.1991, G.O.Ms. No. 424, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 25.05.1976 and G.O.Ms. No. 257, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 10.06.1999. 12. Now the petitioner challenged the same on the ground that the G.O.Ms. No. 257, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept., dt. 10.06.1999 permits ad hoc promotion when the departmental proceedings are not concluded within two years and requested to issue a direction to the respondents as prayed for. 13. Notwithstanding the real controversy between the petitioner and the respondents, G.O.Ms. No. 257, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept., dt. 10.06.1999 was issued in view of pendency of disciplinary enquiries in regard to their appointment by promotion or transfer to higher categories. It is specifically stated in the said G.O. as follows:- "In the reference fourth read above, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India have issued guidelines in regard to consideration of Government servants against whom disciplinary or court proceedings are pending or whose conduct is under investigation, for promotion to next higher categories. Keeping in view the said guidelines, orders have been issued in the G.O. fifth read above, for consideration of employees for ad hoc promotion where the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the Government employees is not concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the meeting of the first Departmental Promotion Committee, in which the employee was considered, in case the employee is not under suspension." On the strength of those guidelines the following direction was issued in Para 6 of the G.O.: Para 6: The appointing 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. 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. 14. Thus, it is clear from the G.O. referred above, if the charge is one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty then the appointing authority would consider that it would not be against the public interest to consider ad hoc promotion to such charged officer. Therefore, there is an exemption to consider the employee for promotion to the higher post. But, for the reason the petitioner being an employee in the Excise Department involved in grave offences punishable under Sections 34(a), 36(1)(b)&(c), u/s. 34(c)&(h), u/s. 37-A of A.P. Excise Act & Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of A.P. Denatured Spirituous Rules 1971, Sections 11, 13, 14 and 15 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968, Sections 34, 35 and 50 of A.P. Excise Act, 1968. 15. As seen the nature of the charges it is evident that the petitioner appears to have involved in those offences taking advantage of his official capacity and such involvement is sufficient to conclude that there is a grave dereliction of duty on the part of this petitioner in dealing with the official affairs of the department and thereby such person is disentitled for promotion. This case would fall within the exception for ad hoc appointment as per Para 6 of the G.O. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999. 16. Hence, based on the public interest the case of the petitioner for appointment cannot be considered though departmental proceedings are not concluded within two years, but still criminal prosecution is pending. This case would fall within the exception for ad hoc appointment as per Para 6 of the G.O. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999. 16. Hence, based on the public interest the case of the petitioner for appointment cannot be considered though departmental proceedings are not concluded within two years, but still criminal prosecution is pending. The petitioner being an employee in Prohibition and Excise Department there are special rules dealing with the promotion of the employees to higher categories. Therefore, special rules will prevail over the general rules and consequently, non-consideration of this petitioner on account of pendency of grave crime and disciplinary proceedings for grave misconduct is justifiable cause and it is strictly in accordance with Standing Order 74.2 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. 17. It is a well settled law that, the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition). This principle is expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant. 18. In R.S. Raghunath versus State of Karnataka and another: (1992) 1 SCC 335 , the Supreme Court held that the special law prevails over general law with one exception and that is a later general law prevails over earlier special law, if it clearly indicates the intention to supersede the special law. 19. In St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi : (1992) 1 SCC 558 the Apex Court held as follows: "140. "The golden rule of interpretation is that words should be read in the ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning and the principle of harmonious construction merely applies the rule that where there is a general provision of law dealing with a subject, and a special provision dealing with the same subject, the special prevails over the general. If it is not constructed in that way the result would be that the special provision would be wholly defeated. 20. The Supreme Court of Canada in, Lalonde v. Sun Life [2002] I.L.R. 1-4106 (O.S.C.J.), Justice Gonthier in his own words held that, "This is an appropriate case in which to apply the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant and give precedence to the special Act. 20. The Supreme Court of Canada in, Lalonde v. Sun Life [2002] I.L.R. 1-4106 (O.S.C.J.), Justice Gonthier in his own words held that, "This is an appropriate case in which to apply the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant and give precedence to the special Act. The principle is, therefore, that where there are provisions in a special Act and in a general Act on the same subject which are inconsistent, if the special Act gives a complete rule on the subject, the expression of the rule acts as an exception to the subject-matter of the rule from the general Act. 21. In the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh : 1990 Crl.L.J. 1315 and C.O. Arumugam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu (referred supra), the State Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 257 GAD Services Department, dated 10.06.1999, and G.O.Ms. No. 66 GAD (Services. C) Department, dated 30.01.1991, and paragraph No. 5 of the said Government Order, dated 30.01.1991, which is germane and relevant for the purpose of the present case, reads as under: "Government, however, hereby direct the promotion/appointment by transfer to a higher post in respect of officers who are facing disciplinary proceedings or a criminal case or whose conduct is under investigation and whose case falls under the ground referred to in para. 2 (iii) of the G.O. first read above, shall be deferred, only when charges of misconduct are framed by the competent authority and served on the concerned delinquent officer, or a charge sheet has been filed against him in criminal Court, as the case may be" 22. In view of the law declared by this Court in the judgment referred above and the G.Os request to appoint the petitioner in the higher category in view of the pendency of criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 200/2019 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge at Repalle, Guntur for grave dereliction of duty and involving in crime, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered invoking G.O.Ms. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999. Hence, I find no ground to consider the request of this petitioner. 23. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the request of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999. There shall be no order as to costs. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999. Hence, I find no ground to consider the request of this petitioner. 23. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the request of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently Interlocutory Applications pending, if any in this Writ Petition shall also stand closed.