ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning he orders passed by the respondent N.2 i.e. Director of Adult Education vide Proceedings Rc.No.1030/A/DAE/TS/2022 dated 23.08.2022 cancelling the petitioner’s promotion orders issued vide Proceedings No.Rc.458/A1/DAE/TS/2015-1 dated 23.10.2021 issued by the respondent No.2 and reverting the petitioner as Project Officer, Adult Education on the ground of pending criminal case No.CC No.324/2021 was not brought to the notice of DPC by the petitioner is nothing but arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of relevant rules apart from violation of Articles 4, 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same …” 2. Heard Sri V.Rohith, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Services-I 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor in Adult Education Department under Physically Handicapped Quota and later he was promoted as Project Officer in the year 2014. While the petitioner was working at Adilabad he was placed under suspension along with two others on the allegation of misappropriation of an amount of Rs.7,98,000/- with regard to release of honorarium to Village Coordinators and Mandal Coordinators on 27.08.2018 and the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and reinstated into service on 04.07.2019. Thereafter, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and basing on the Enquiry Officer’s report dated 09.09.2019, the respondent No.2 imposed major punishment of withholding of one Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that basing on the complaint filed by the Deputy Director, Adult Education (FAC), Nizamabad a criminal case was registered by the police against the petitioner and two others and charge sheet was filed on 08.02.2020 under Sections 420, 468 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code wherein the petitioner was shown as the Accused No.2 and the same is pending before the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nizamabad in CC No.324 of 2021. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Enquiry Report, there was no finding against the petitioner with regard to alleged misappropriation of funds and it was only due to supervisory lapses on the part of the petitioner. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Enquiry Report, there was no finding against the petitioner with regard to alleged misappropriation of funds and it was only due to supervisory lapses on the part of the petitioner. The alleged misappropriation amount of Rs.7,98,000/- was recovered from the accused No.1 and 3 and no amount was recovered from the petitioner. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after imposing punishment and after completion of currency of punishment, the petitioner was promoted as Deputy Director, Adult Education on 23.10.2021. Thereafter the petitioner made representation to the respondent No.2 on 25.07.2022 requesting to withdraw criminal proceedings in CC No.324 of 2001 narrating all the facts. But, surprisingly the respondent No.2 issued impugned proceedings dated 23.08.2022 reverting the petitioner from the post of Deputy Director to Project Officer on the ground that he did not bring the matter of filing charge sheet in criminal case to the authorities. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the every aspect pertaining to the alleged misappropriation amount was within the knowledge of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and therefore the question of not brining the same to their notice does not arise. In fact the screening committee approved the name of the petitioner for inclusion in the panel for the year 202122 for promotion and thereafter the DPC considered the same and issued promotion orders to the petitioner as Deputy Director of Adult Education and the impugned order cancelling the promotion and consequent orders of reverting the petitioner to the post of Project Officer is illegal and arbitrary and requested to allow the writ petition. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, basing on the counter, submits that the details of the criminal cases pending against the individuals have to be bring to the notice of the DPC/Screening Committee at the time of conducting of meetings in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration Department, dated 10.06.1999 and then the DPC/Screening Committee decides the issue of promotions to the persons facing criminal cases. In the instant case the petitioner did not reveal the issue of criminal case pending against him and got promotion in the year 2021 though he was well aware of the fact of pending criminal case against him, as such the petitioner was promoted ad hoc basis, thus the petitioner was irregularly promoted to the cadre of Deputy Director of Adult Education and the same was came to the notice of the Director of Adult Education, while examining the representation filed by the petitioner on 25.07.2022 and immediately on coming to know the said fact the petitioner was reverted to the post of Project Officer with immediate effect. 9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that as per rules in vogue, in para No.2 (iii) of G.O.M.No.424, GAD, dated 25.05.1976 the promotion of the officers, against whom criminal case is pending and a charge sheet has been filed, has to be deferred and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 10. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders in support of their contentions, relied upon the judgment of this court in N.Srinivasulu Vs. The State of Telangana, represented by its Prl. Secretary, Revenue Department, WA No.209 of 2020. 11. After hearing both sides and upon perusing the records this court is of the considered view that admittedly the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for alleged misappropriation of an amount of Rs.7.98,000/- and also a criminal complaint lodged for the same set of allegation. The respondents have conducted departmental enquiry and imposed major punishment of withholding of one Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect through proceedings No.RC.881/A/DAE/TS/2018 dated 09.09.2019 and in the criminal case charge sheet was also filed against the petitioner and two others and it was numbered as CC No.324 of 2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad wherein the petitioner was shown as Accused No.2. Further, the alleged misappropriated amount was recovered from one Vankdoth Ramdas Naik, Deputy Director and A.Abhilash Goud, Coordinator, however, no amount has been recovered from the petitioner. 12. After imposing major punishment and after currency of punishment, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and issued promotion orders on 23.10.2021. 13. 12. After imposing major punishment and after currency of punishment, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director and issued promotion orders on 23.10.2021. 13. After joining in the promotional post, the petitioner made representation to the respondent No.2 on 25.07.2022 for withdrawal of criminal case as he has not involved in the alleged misappropriation of amounts. Basing on the said representation, the respondent No.2 issued impugned orders on 23.08.2022 reverting the petitioner from the post of Deputy Director to Project Officer on the ground that the petitioner has not brought to the notice of the respondent No.2 about the pendency of criminal case against him. 14. The respondents have imposed major punishment of withholding of one Annual Grade Increment with cumulative effect on 09.09.2019 and a criminal case was also registered against the petitioner and two others for the same set of facts. In number of cases this Court time and again granting orders to consider the cases of the employees’ for promotions in view of long pendency of departmental proceedings/criminal cases on the ground of delay and latches. In the instant case, the respondents have initiated departmental proceedings as well as criminal case against the petitioner for the same set of facts and concluded departmental proceedings and imposed major penalty against the petitioner. 15. The petitioner was promoted on 23.10.2021 and ten months thereafter, without issuing any notice to the petitioner issued the impugned orders which is contrary to Rule-23 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. 15. The petitioner was promoted on 23.10.2021 and ten months thereafter, without issuing any notice to the petitioner issued the impugned orders which is contrary to Rule-23 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. Rule-23 of Telangana State Subordinate and Service Rules, reads as follows: Rule-23 - Appeal, revision and review of orders of appointment (including promotion) to higher posts :- An order appointing a Member of service or class of service or category, to a higher post by transfer or by promotion, may within a period of six months from the date of such order, be revised by an authority to which an appeal would lie against the order of dismissal passed against a Member of a service, class or category, such revision may be made by the appellate authority aforesaid, either on its own motion or an on appeal filed by the aggrieved member of service, class or category: Provided that the Government may, irrespective of whether they are the appellate authority or not, revise such order of appointment after the expiry of the period of six months aforesaid, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing; Provided further that no order or revision under this rule shall be passed unless the person likely to be affected by such revision is given an opportunity of making his representation against the proposed revision; 16. In the instant case, the respondents without giving an opportunity to the petitioner for making representation against reversion issued impugned orders. 17. In view of the above, the judgment relied on by the learned Assistant Government Pleader in N.Srinivasulu Vs. The State of Telangana (supra) not apply to the instant case, as in that case the petitioner therein sought promotion pending disciplinary/criminal proceedings, whereas in the instant case the matter pertains to reversion and the petitioner had already suffered major punishment and after currency of punishment, the petitioner was promoted and now the respondents have passed impugned revision orders without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without following the Rules under Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules and the impugned order passed by the respondents in reverting the petitioner is liable to be set aside. 18. In view of the above finding the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.1030/A/DAE /TS/2022 dated 23.08.2022. 19. 18. In view of the above finding the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent No.2 in Rc.No.1030/A/DAE /TS/2022 dated 23.08.2022. 19. As sequel to it, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.