Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 449 (TS)

G. Narsimha Reddy v. State of Telangana

2023-06-19

K.SARATH

body2023
ORDER : 1. Heard, Learned counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Special Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is presently working as Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) and he is eligible and qualified for promotion to post of Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) and questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for the promotion to the post of Superintendant of Police (Non-Cadre) on the ground of pending of an ACB case registered in F.I.R No.37/RCA-RRR/2019, dated 17.12.2019. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner while working as Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Siddipet Police Commissionerate, a case was registered against the petitioner by the ACB and as on this date no charge sheet is filed by the Investigating Agency. Neither final report is sent to Government nor sanction accorded for prosecution. The proceedings are still at the crime stage only and the petitioner is falsely implicated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was placed under suspension through G.O.Rt.No.22, Home (Special) Department, dated 09.01.2020 and later reinstated into service through G.O.Rt.No.899, Home (Special) Department, dated 16.06.2021. The respondents effected the promotions in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) to adhoc promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) and also in the cadre of Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) for the panel years 2013-2014 to 2019-2020 through G.O.Ms.No.38, Home (Ser-I) Department, dated 26.03.2021 and also issued ad hoc promotional orders in the cadre of Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) to Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre) in G.O.Rt.No.490, Home Department, dated 20.04.2021 and juniors to the petitioner were promoted and case of the petitioner was not considered. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it was well-settled principle of law that right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India and such a right is being defeated on the ground of pendency of F.I.R and withholding of promotion would amount to imposition of a penalty before the allegations leveled or held proved and requested to allow the writ petition by considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) without reference to the criminal case filed in F.I.R No.34/RCA-RRR/2019 dated 17.12.2019. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following Judgments: 1. A.Jalander Reddy Vs. State of Telangana, 2017 (4) ALT 225 2. State of A.P. Vs. N.Shankar Prasad, Unreported judgment in WP No.3315 of 2019 Dated 23.01.2020 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh 7. The Learned Special Government Pleader for Home basing on the counter-affidavit submits that an ACB case was registered against the petitioner under section 13(1)(b) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 17.12.2019 for disproportionate of assets and was arrested on 18.12.2019 and he was suspended from service on 19.12.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into services through G.O.Rt.No.899, Home (Special) Department, dated 16.06.2021. 8. The learned Special Government Pleader further submits that in pursuance to the orders of this Court finalized the promotions in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police in the year 2021. The petitioner’s service was regularized in the cadre of Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) from 01.09.2017. At the time of preparation of panels of Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) fit for promotion as Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre), the petitioner was involved in an ACB case and he was placed under suspension, hence his case was not considered. The respondents rightly deferred promotion to the petitioner in the year, 2021 along with his juniors and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 9. After hearing both sides and perusing the records this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is presently working as Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) and the ACB has registered case against the petitioner on the ground of disproportionate of assets in F.I.R.No.37/RAC-RRR/2019, dated 17.12.2019 and the petitioner was under suspension from 19.12.2019 to 16.06.2021. 9. After hearing both sides and perusing the records this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is presently working as Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) and the ACB has registered case against the petitioner on the ground of disproportionate of assets in F.I.R.No.37/RAC-RRR/2019, dated 17.12.2019 and the petitioner was under suspension from 19.12.2019 to 16.06.2021. At the time of reinstatement into service, the respondents were finalized the seniority list of Non-Cadre category of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Additional Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police and the petitioner promotion was regularized and was assigned notional date 01.09.2017 in the cadre of Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) and eligible for the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) for the panel year 2020-2021. 10. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was under suspension from 19.12.2019 to 16.06.2021 and in view of the suspension, case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion on par with his juniors. In the instant case petitioner is questioning the action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) on par with his juniors on the ground of no charge-sheet was filed or no sanction of prosecution was granted against the petitioner. At the time of affecting the promotion to the juniors as Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre), the petitioner was under suspension and the respondents were rightly not considered the case of the petitioner for the promotion. 11. The Judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e., A.Jalander Reddy Vs. State of Telangana (supra 1) and State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N.Shankar Prasad (supra 2) are applicable for some extent. In view of the above judgments, whenever the respondents are effecting the promotions to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) in future, if there is no charge memo or charge sheet pending against the petitioner, he is eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre). 12. In view of the above findings, the present Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) in existing vacancy as and when promotions are effected without reference to the F.I.R No.37/RCA-RRR/2019, dated 17.12.2019. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.