Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 155 (TS)

Saikam Anjana Reddy v. State of Telangana

2023-02-16

K.SARATH

body2023
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed for the following relief: “.......to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments as wholly illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider my case for promotion with all consequential benefits with effect from the date that is w.e.f. 10.07.2019, on which date petitioner’s juniors are promoted with all service benefits including areas of salary, seniority, promotion etc., in the interest of justice” 2. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working as Executive Officer Grade-I at Sri Peddamma Devalayam, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, at the instance of a contract employee of the temple, a case was registered against the petitioner vide Crime No.14/RCT-CR-1/2019 dated 07.05.2019 by the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the complaint was filed just before promotion was taken up by the department, obviously, it was a trap to deploy and deprive the petitioner of consideration by certain individuals with vested rights. The right to consider for promotion is a fundamental right and merely registration of a case by the authority cannot deprive the petitioner of consideration for promotion. But, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for promotion and on the other hand, promoted four of the juniors of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 10.07.2019. The Charge Sheet was filed on 22.07.2021 and even after two years, there is absolutely no progress and pending for Trial. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that firstly, non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion and promoting the juniors of the petitioner on 10.07.2019 is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and secondly, the respondents are proposing to undertake promotions once again to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments since, there are 6 vacancies. If the Department once again ignore the case of the petitioner, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and requested to consider the same and allow the Writ Petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgements: 1. If the Department once again ignore the case of the petitioner, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and requested to consider the same and allow the Writ Petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgements: 1. A.Jalender Reddy Vs. State of Telangana and Another, 2017 (4) ALD 538 . 2. State of M.P. Vs. J.S.Bansal and Another, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1015. 3. Delhi Jal Board Vs. Mahinder Singh, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2767. 4. N.Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2021 (4) ALD 389 (AP) (DB). 5. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. Ch.Venkat Rao, 2022 (6) ALD 400 (AP) (DB). 6. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents basing on the counter submits that promotion/ appointment by transfer to a higher post in respect of officers who are facing disciplinary proceedings or a criminal case and whose conduct is under investigation and whose case falls under the group referred in G.O.Ms.No.424, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 25.05.1976 shall be deferred. In the present case, the petitioner was trapped by the officials of ACB on 07.05.2019 A.N. and criminal case has been registered against him in Crime No.14/RCT-CR-1/2019 of A.C.B., City Range-I, Hyderabad U/s.7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act, 49 of 1988) and charge sheet has also been filed vide C.C.No.65/2021 and the matter is pending and the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and requested to dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner was involved in a ACB case registered No.14/RCT-CR-1/2019 dated 07.05.2019 under Section 7(a) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the ACB file report i.e. charge sheet against the petitioner. But the respondents not initiated any departmental proceedings against the petitioner as on this date. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the four of the juniors of the petitioner promoted on 10.07.2019, but the charge sheet was filed by the ACB on 22.07.2021 and the respondents are not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments mere ground of criminal case is pending against the petitioner. 8. An employee has a right of being considered for promotion but he cannot claim promotion as of right. 8. An employee has a right of being considered for promotion but he cannot claim promotion as of right. Right to be considered for promotion is obviously different and distinct from right of promotion. Even if disciplinary proceedings are initiated against an employee and those proceedings are pending on the date on which names of other employees are considered for promotion to the next higher post, the delinquent employee, if he is similarly circumstanced as other employees and is also eligible, has a right to be considered for promotion to the next higher post along with other employees. His name cannot be omitted from consideration merely because of the pendency of the departmental proceedings. An employee cannot be denied this right at the interlocutory stage of the departmental proceedings as he is still to be found guilty on the basis of the evidence which might be produced against him during those proceedings. Till the charges are established, his right to be considered cannot be defeated as he is not under the cloud of having been found guilty but is only suspected to be guilty as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. J.S.Bansal reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1015 (Supra-2). 9. The right to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, provided a person is eligible and is in the zone of consideration and it is an established proposition of law that while every employee has a right to have his case considered for promotion, which is a guarantee under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, but, an employee has no right to seek promotion as a matter of right. 10. In the instant case, the respondents not even place the name of the petitioner before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration. In view of the law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents have to place the name of the petitioner before Departmental Promotion Committee along with the particulars of pending criminal proceedings. The Departmental Promotion Committee will take decision as per the rules. In view of the law laid down by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondents have to place the name of the petitioner before Departmental Promotion Committee along with the particulars of pending criminal proceedings. The Departmental Promotion Committee will take decision as per the rules. In view of the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to place the name of the petitioner before the Departmental Promotion Committee as and when affecting the promotions to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Endowments. 11. Accordingly, with the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.