JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the order, dated 13.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.21769 of 2021 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the appellants and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants had contended that while the respondent was working as Forest Section Officer, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent by the disciplinary authority alleging that the respondent had connived with those encroaching on the forest land and that resulted in encroachment. After conducting departmental enquiry and for the proven misconduct, the disciplinary authority has imposed a punishment of stoppage of one (1) annual grade increment without cumulative effect besides recovery of an amount of Rs.14,249/- vide proceedings, dated 18.07.2014. The case of the respondent was not considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer on the ground that the charge memo was pending against the respondent. 4. Challenging the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the respondent has preferred an appeal to the appellate authority and the appellate authority was pleased to modify the punishment of ‘stoppage of one (1) annual grade increment without cumulative effect’ to that of ‘warning’ and dropped the punishment vide proceedings, dated 29.09.2014. Thereafter, the respondent was seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer on par with his junior. The case of the respondent was considered and the same was rejected vide proceedings, dated 13.07.2021 on the ground that if the appellate authority has modified the punishment as warning, then, such case has to be considered for promotion to the next higher post with prospective effect only, but not with retrospective effect, that too on par with his junior. 5. Learned Government Pleader had further contended that as per G.O.Ms.No.331, dated 03.05.2013, the State Government has taken a policy decision that promotions shall be considered with prospective effect only in respect of the cases where the appellate authority have modified the punishment on humanitarian grounds with warning to be more careful in future. Accordingly, the appellants have considered the case of the respondent and the same was rejected in terms of G.O.Ms.No.331, dated 03.05.2013. Accordingly, the appellants have considered the case of the respondent and the same was rejected in terms of G.O.Ms.No.331, dated 03.05.2013. Aggrieved by the said rejection orders, the respondent has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.21769 of 2021 and the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition in favour of the respondent vide order, dated 13.03.2024, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants. 6. Learned Government Pleader had further contended that the appellate authority has not fully exonerated the respondent, but has given a warning to be careful in future, which would mean that the charge levelled against the respondent was held to be proved and the same was upheld by the appellate authority with a warning. Since, the respondent was not fully exonerated, the question of considering the case of respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer on par with his junior with retrospective effect, would not arise. 7. Learned Government Pleader had further contended that initially the disciplinary authority has imposed two punishments viz., stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect and recovery of an amount of Rs.14,249/-. Since, the respondent has suffered the punishment of recovery and amount was also recovered from the respondent, the question of considering the case of respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer on par with his junior would not arise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order, dated 13.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.21769 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge and allow the Writ Appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent had contended that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the Writ Petition in favour of the respondent by setting aside the rejection order, dated 13.07.2021. Learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that as far as the two punishments are concerned, they are not enumerated punishments, as per Rule 9 of TSCS (CCA) Rules, 1991 (for short, ‘CCA Rules’). As long as no punishment is imposed as per the Rules, the question of not considering the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer on par with his immediate junior would not arise. 9. As long as no punishment is imposed as per the Rules, the question of not considering the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer on par with his immediate junior would not arise. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that G.O.Ms.No.331, dated 03.05.2013 has no application in the instant case, as admittedly, promotion from the post of Forest Section Officer to that of Deputy Range Officer is a non-selection post and both are Non Gazetted posts. As per the Rule 5 (b) (i) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, ‘the Rules’), all the promotions have to be effected based upon the seniority. Admittedly, in the instant case, the junior was promoted ahead of the respondent just because a charge memo was pending against him. Learned counsel further contended that punishment of ‘stoppage of one (1) annual grade increment without cumulative effect’ as imposed by the disciplinary authority was modified to ‘warning’ and ‘warning’ is not one of the enumerated punishment. As far as ‘recovery of amount’ is concerned that punishment is also deleted from Rule 9 of CCA Rules. The net result would be that no punishment was imposed on respondent in accordance with Rule 9 of CCA Rules, Hence, the respondent is entitled to claim promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer on par with his junior. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that a perusal of Rule 5 (b) (i) of the Rules makes it clear that the promotion/appointment by transfer of a member can be withheld as a penalty. Admittedly, in the instant case, no penalty is enumerated under Rule 9 of CCA Rules. Therefore, there is no bar in respect of considering the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer on par with his immediate junior. Hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the Writ Petition in favour of the respondent. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the learned Single Judge has merely directed the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer on par with his immediate junior. No positive mandamus was given by the learned Single Judge and right to be considered is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. No positive mandamus was given by the learned Single Judge and right to be considered is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the Writ Petition in favour of the respondent, as admittedly, the appellate authority has modified the punishment of “stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect” to that of “warning” and warning is not enumerated punishment under Rule 9 of CCA Rules. As far as recovery of amount is concerned that punishment is also deleted from the Rule 9 of CCA Rules. The net result would be that no punishment was imposed on the respondent in accordance with Rule 9 of CCA Rules. Therefore, there is no bar in respect of considering the case of the respondent for promotion to the post of Deputy Range Officer on par with his immediate junior and the post of Deputy Range Officer is a non-selection post and as per Rule 5 (b) (i) of the Rules, promotions have to be effected based upon the seniority. Until and unless there is a punishment, the promotion of employee cannot be withheld. Admittedly, in the instant case, no such punishment is imposed as per Rule 9 of CCA Rules. As far as G.O.Ms.No.331, dated 03.05.2013 is concerned, the said G.O is applicable only for selection post where the Departmental Promotion Committee/Screening Committee are to be constituted, but in the instant case, it is a non-selection post. Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.331, dated 03.05.2013 has no application in the present case. Hence, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the Writ Petition in favour of the respondent. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 13. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.