ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent municipality. 2. Petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in municipality service. He is aspiring promotion as Revenue Officer/Manager in the municipality service. According to petitioner in the final seniority list of Senior Assistants/UDRIs working in the municipalities of Warangal region prepared and published vide proceedings dated 5.12.2020, he was shown at serial no.20. In the Inter Regional seniority list, petitioner was shown at appropriate place and based on these placements, he is now within the zone of consideration for promotion as Revenue Officer/Manager. Petitioner apprehends that Departmental Promotion Committee is scheduled to meet shortly but on the ground that charges were formulated vide G.O.Rt No. 478 dated 21.06.2018 and departmental proceedings are pending, he is being ignored from consideration. In this writ petition, petitioner seeks direction to consider his claim for promotion as Revenue Officer/Manager without taking into consideration charge memo issued vide G.O.Rt No. 478 dated 21.06.2018 and to consider his case strictly in accordance with terms of G.O.Ms. No. 257 GAD (Ser-C) Dated 10.6.1999 and G.O.Ms No. 66 dated 30.01.1991 and to promote him. He placed reliance on directions issued by this Court in W.P. Nos. 24625 of 2020 and W.P. No. 11685 of 2019. 3. The issue for consideration is whether petitioner is entitled to claim promotions ignoring pending disciplinary proceedings. 4. Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 (for convenience referred to as ‘General Rules’) deal with general conditions of service of all Government employees. Rule 5 deals with procedure for promotion to selection posts and non-selection posts. According to this Rule, non-gazetted posts are not treated as selection posts. According to sub-rule (a) of Rule 5, all first appointments to a State service and all promotions/appointments by transfer in that service should be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal, from the panel of eligible candidates determined. In case of non-section post, sub-rule (b) contemplates that promotion should be made in accordance with assessment of fitness of persons based on seniority position in the immediate lower cadre. 5. Rule 6 deals with method of preparation of panels. In case of non-section post, sub-rule (b) contemplates that promotion should be made in accordance with assessment of fitness of persons based on seniority position in the immediate lower cadre. 5. Rule 6 deals with method of preparation of panels. The salient features of this provision are, panel of approved candidates as envisaged in Rule 5 (a) should be prepared by appointing authority/authority empowered, in consultation with, the Departmental Promotion Committee if such posts are outside the purview of the Telangana State Public Service Commission and the Screening Committee, in respect of the posts within the purview of Telangana State Public Service Commission. The appointment should be made from the panels so drawn. Where no consultation is required from the Public Service Commission, panel should be prepared ordinarily during the month of September every year on the basis of estimate of vacancies. The 1st September of the year shall be reckoned as qualifying date to determine the eligibility and such panel would lapse on 31st December of the succeeding year or when the next panel is prepared, whichever is earlier. The zone of consideration is confined to 1:3. For computation of vacancies, 1st September of the year to the 31st August of the succeeding year should be reckoned as the period. 6. According to Rule 6(i) for non selection posts, competent authority should prepare list of eligible employees every year i.e., from 1st September of the year to the 31st August of the succeeding year, after considering the record sheet and qualifications prescribed. 7. It is appropriate to notice that Rules 5 and 6 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 do not deal with the issue of consideration for promotion when disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings are pending. However, these Rules give sufficient indication when they contemplate assessment of suitability/fitness the conduct of employee is an important attribute to be looked into before granting promotion. 8. An employee is entitled to seek advancement in service. Stagnation in a particular post is anti-thesis to the very concept of organizing the service. Every employee has right for consideration for promotion. However, such consideration is subject to seniority, eligibility and availability of vacancy in the higher cadre. If a person fulfils the above criteria, granting promotion depends on assessment of suitability. Once he is found suitable, his promotion cannot be ignored. Every employee has right for consideration for promotion. However, such consideration is subject to seniority, eligibility and availability of vacancy in the higher cadre. If a person fulfils the above criteria, granting promotion depends on assessment of suitability. Once he is found suitable, his promotion cannot be ignored. However, while assessing the suitability, it is permissible for the employer to take note of pending disciplinary action/criminal prosecution and side line him when there is a cloud on his conduct. More particularly, criminal prosecution directly attributable to the work of employee is more relevant as compared to involvement of an employee in criminal proceedings unconnected to the employment. In the case on hand, crime was registered against the petitioner on the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to do official favour and petitioner is facing trial before the Special Court. Thus, the conduct of the petitioner as Inspector of Police is under cloud. 9. The administrative instructions/orders notified vide G.O.Ms.Nos.424 General Administration (Services. C) Department, dated 25.05.1976 and G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999 fill the vacuum created in the Rules and supplement the intendment of the Rules. They reflect the policy of the Government on consideration for promotion when disciplinary proceedings /criminal proceedings are pending. 10. At this stage it is expedient to consider the policy of the State Government in a little more detail. In the combined State, prior to bifurcation, the Government formulated promotion policy on consideration of employees/officers facing the disciplinary proceedings and the same is in force in Telangana. In Telangana sealed cover procedure is not adopted. 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. 11. For the purpose of such consideration, Government classified the Officers, who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation, into three categories. Government notified its policy vide G.O.Ms.No. 424, dated 25.05.1976. 11. For the purpose of such consideration, Government classified the Officers, who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation, into three categories. 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; and (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. 12. According to G.O.Ms.No.424, dated 25.5.1976, 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. 13. 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, 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. (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:- (i) an officer with a clean record, the nature of charges or allegations against whom related 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 or charges under enquiry, trial or investigation; and (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:- (i) Adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports, the penalties awarded and the bad reputation of the Officer as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned; The above cases should be considered as falling under category (ii) of item (B) above. (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) Dept, dt: 25-5-1976 as mentioned above only should be considered for adhoc 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 adhoc 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 adhoc 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 adhoc 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 adhoc 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. This G.O. 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. 15. The G.O. enables consideration of claims of officers also falling under the third category, 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. 16. 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 for granting ad hoc promotion also if charge leveled is either one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty or all of them. 17. 16. 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 for granting ad hoc promotion also if charge leveled is either one of moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement and grave dereliction of duty or all of them. 17. 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. 18. 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. This policy stood the test of time and is in line with law laid down by the constitutional Courts. 19. On the claims for promotion pending departmental proceedings/criminal proceedings, this Court in A. Jalender Reddy Vs State of Telangana and another, 2017 (4) ALD 538 , considered the precedent decisions on the subject and held as under: “80. In the several decisions referred to above, Supreme Court was interpreting the policy document of the employers on the scope of consideration for promotion when disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending (ordinarily employers adopt the ‘sealed cover procedure’; in States of Andhra Pradesh and Telengana- result of the DPC recommendation is announced but adopt policy of deferment ). The precedent decisions unequivocally hold that disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings are stated to be pending only when charge sheet is issued /filed and then only promotion can be differed and pending investigation is not a ground to deny promotion when due. 81. 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. 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.” 20. In the case on hand, petitioner is not challenging the disciplinary proceedings pending against him but he is only seeking relief of consideration for promotion without reference to pending disciplinary proceedings. So long as disciplinary proceedings are pending, the claims for consideration for promotion and granting promotion is regulated by policy decision notified by Government in G.O.Ms. No. 257 GAD (Ser-C) Dated 10.6.1999. When a policy governs the State action, whose validity is not assailed and if the competent authority of the State Government gives effect to such policy, in exercise of power of judicial review writ Court cannot mandate consideration of the claim of petitioner for promotion without reference to pending disciplinary proceedings. It is also appropriate to notice that consideration for promotion without reference to pending disciplinary proceedings and to consider as per G.O.Ms No. 257 dated 10.6.1999 do not go hand in hand. 21. There is no clarity in the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to the reasons for the delay, if any. From the charge memo and annexure enclosed to the charge memo, it is seen that several officers/employees are involved on various allegations and joint disciplinary action was initiated exercising power under Rule 24 of Telangana Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. When there is a joint enquiry and several officers/employees are involved, invariably it will take more time to complete the domestic enquiry compared to domestic enquiry against an individual employee. Further more, it is but a reality that since 23.3.2020 the functioning of the administration crippled because of the pandemic. Having regard to these facts, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay ennuring to the benefit of the petitioner for this Court to extend equitable relief and direct to consider him for promotion without reference to disciplinary proceedings. Further more, it is but a reality that since 23.3.2020 the functioning of the administration crippled because of the pandemic. Having regard to these facts, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay ennuring to the benefit of the petitioner for this Court to extend equitable relief and direct to consider him for promotion without reference to disciplinary proceedings. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is deliberate delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings only to deprive promotion to him. No case is made out to carve out exception to apply the view taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs.Chaman Lal Goyel, (1995) 2 SCC 570 . 22. As noticed above, the policy notified in G.O.Ms. No. 257 GAD (Ser-C) Dated 10.6.1999 takes note of all contingencies. Unless employee is considered earlier for promotion and his promotion was deferred on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are not concluded even after two years, of such consideration subject to parameters of G.O.Ms. No. 257 GAD (Ser-C) Dated 10.6.1999, and subject to a certification by the competent authority to grant promotion, the employee is not entitled to claim promotion even on adhoc basis pending disciplinary proceedings. In the case on hand, it appears from averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that candidature of petitioner for consideration for promotion is due for the first time, therefore adhoc promotion clause in G.O.Ms. No. 257 GAD (Ser-C) Dated 10.6.1999 is also not attracted. 23. Thus, the writ petition merits no consideration and it is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that Court has not expressed opinion on consideration of petitioner for promotion per se and issue is confined to his claim for consideration for promotion without reference to pending disciplinary proceedings. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.