Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 166 (TS)

Jatavath Krishna v. State of Telangana

2025-03-21

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri G. Ravi Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the seniority of Petitioner for promotion of PCs (AR) as HCs (AR) in spite of setting aside the impugned order by 2 nd Respondent as null, void, illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and against principle of natural justice and violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently memo issued by the 3 rd respondent in C. No. 3768/A1/2022 dated 10-10-2022 is illegal and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and direct the 3 rd Respondent to consider the Petitioner promotion as HCs (AR) on par with his batch mates and to pass Prayer is amended as per C. O. dt 19/12/2022 in IA 2/2022”. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief, is that the petitioner has been appointed as Police Constable in the year 1999. The petitioner was suspended from services on 01.05.2022 due to his arrest in Cr.No.58/2002 for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 474, 420, 477 of IPC of PS Karepally and the Commandant revoked his suspension on 11.05.2004 and the petitioner joined duty. The petitioner further submits that the criminal case ended in acquittal but the Departmental Enquiry dated 21.11.2015 was proved against the petitioner and awarded the punishment of “PPI for one (1) year without effect” on his future increments and pension, treating the suspension period from 12.5.2002 to 21.06.2004 as “Not on Duty”. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred appeal and the Appellate Authority set aside the said punishment and ordered the suspension period to be treated as “On duty”. The petitioner was relieved on 15.03.2018 from the office of the Commandant, 4 th Bn, TSSP, Mamnoor, Warangal to join as Police Constables (AR/SAR CPL)(Men) by transfer and accordingly the petitioner joined as PC (AR) in Khammam District. The petitioner was relieved on 15.03.2018 from the office of the Commandant, 4 th Bn, TSSP, Mamnoor, Warangal to join as Police Constables (AR/SAR CPL)(Men) by transfer and accordingly the petitioner joined as PC (AR) in Khammam District. The petitioner further submits that the 2nd respondent issued order dated 30.12.2019 for promotion of PCS (AR) as HCs (AR), but the petitioner was denied promotion without counting his seniority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation before the 3 rd respondent for consideration of his promotion as Head Constable and the same was rejected by the 3 rd respondent vide Memo, dated 10.10.2022. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD. A. The relevant portion of the impugned proceedings C.No.10/ PR/ A6/ 2002, (DO No.1466/ 2015), dated 21.11.2015 issued by the 12 th Bn., TSSP, Nalgonda is extracted hereunder “I have gone through the entire file and connected records carefully, the case registered against the charged officer in Cr.No.58/02, u/s 468, 471, 474, 420, 477 IPC of PS Karepally has been ended acquittal in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Yellandu. But the departmental enquiry has been proved. The charged officer being a Government servant has been submitted fake certificate from the Board of Adult Education and Training, New Delhi, which is equivalent to intermediate for SI and RSI selections to get the reservation benefit. As stated by the vendor the above certificate was purchased by PC-608 and same was false and he also fails to inform about the criminal case on him for the above default, he has suppressed the above fact. Being working in disciplinary police force, he should have not misguided his superior officers. And also heated the Govt. Hence I award the punishment of "PPI for (1) year without effect" on his future increments and pension. Treating the suspension period from 12-05- 2002 to 21-06-2004 FN total (770) days as "NOT ON DUTY”. B. Against the said proceedings, dated 21.11.2015, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e., Inspector General of Police, TSSP, Hyderabad and the Inspector General of Police, TSSP, Hyderabad vide Rc.No.R/ 74/ App/ 2016, (ROO No.160/ 2016), dated 25.06.2016 allow ed the appeal preferred by the petitioner observing as under: “6. B. Against the said proceedings, dated 21.11.2015, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e., Inspector General of Police, TSSP, Hyderabad and the Inspector General of Police, TSSP, Hyderabad vide Rc.No.R/ 74/ App/ 2016, (ROO No.160/ 2016), dated 25.06.2016 allow ed the appeal preferred by the petitioner observing as under: “6. Now agreed with the above said order the applicant Sri K. Krishna, PC 608 of 12 Bn TSSP now working in 4 th BN TSSP submitted an appeal petition to his office for consideration. 7. I have gone through the appeal petition and connected records facts have been re-verified and it was found that the certificate was original and equivalent to Intermediate. Hence penalty awarded is set aside suspension period as treated as on duty”. C. The impugned proceedings Memo, C.No.3768/ A1/ 2022, dated 10.10.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent herein, is extracted hereunder: Sri J. Krishna Rao, was not considered for conversion along with his batch mates as there was an oral inquiry pending against him for his involvement in Criminal case vide Cr.No.58/2022 U/s 468, 471, 474, 420, 477 IPC. Later, he was awarded punishment of PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension vide D.O. dated. 21.11.2015 of the Commandant 12th Bn. On appeal the punishment was set aside by the IGP TSSP vide DO dated 25.06.2016. Since, he was facing OE when his batch mates were appointed as PC AR, his request to appoint him now notionally because the punishment was set aside cannot be considered as there is no such provision in the Rules” . D. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is extracted hereunder:- “ Further, it is informed that the representation of the petitioner was not considered for conversion along with his batch mates as there was an oral inquiry pending against him for his involvement in Criminal Case vide Cr.No.58/2002 U/s 468, 471, 474, 420, 477 IPC and he was awarded with the punishment of “PPI for one year without effect on future increments and pension” vide proceedings in C.No.10/PR/A6/2002 (DO.No.1466/2015), dated 21.11.2015 of the Commandant, 12 th Bn.after conducting of an Oral Enquiry against Sri J.Krishna, APRC 1725 of CAR, Khammam formerly of 12 th Bn.TSSP, Nalgonda. On appeal the punishment was set aside by the IGP TSSP vide DO dated, 25.06.2016. On appeal the punishment was set aside by the IGP TSSP vide DO dated, 25.06.2016. Since, he was facing OE when his batch mates were appointed as PC AR, his request to appoint him now notionally because the punishment was set aside cannot be considered, as there is no such provision in the Rules. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the request of the petitioner to assign notional seniority on par with his batch mates who were appointed by transfer from TSSP on 08.04.2012 had been rejected vide Memo, C.No.3768/ A1/ 2022, dated 10.10.2022 of the Commissioner of Police, Khammam illegally merely stating that there is no such provision in the rules. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further contends that the request of the petitioner to assign notional seniority to the petitioner on par with petitioner’s batch mates since the punishment imposed against the petitioner was set-aside vide proceedings Rc.No.R/ 74/ App/ 2016, (ROO No.160/ 2016) of the Appellate Authority, dated 25.06.2016, cannot be rejected now , on the ground that there is no provision in the rules to consider the request of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner notionally, because the punishment was set-aside is highly illegal, arbitrary. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, because there is no such provision in the rules and since the petitioner was facing oral enquiry when petitioner’s batch mates were appointed as PC AR. Therefore, the request of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner now notionally because, punishment was set-aside cannot be considered. 7. Therefore, the request of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner now notionally because, punishment was set-aside cannot be considered. 7. A bare perusal of the material documents filed along with the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition, in particular, the order of the appellate Authority, dated 25.06.2016 very clearly indicates that the penalty aw arded to the petitioner had been set-aside duly treating the period of suspension as “on duty” and therefore, the plea of the 3 rd respondent in the order impugned, dated 10.10.2022 stating that the petitioner was facing oral enquiry when petitioner’s batch mates were appointed as PC AR and therefore, the request of the petitioner to appoint the petitioner now notionally, because the punishment was set-aside by the appellate Authority vide proceedings, dated 25.06.2016 cannot be considered, since there is no such provision in the rules is untenable and rejected, since the impugned proceedings dated 10.10.2022 admittedly as borne on record had been passed by the 3 rd respondent mechanically in a routine manner. 8. As borne on record, the petitioner’s batch mates were appointed as PC AR, since the appellate Authority had passed clear orders in favour of the petitioner, dated 25.06.2016 itself setting aside the very penalty awarded to the petitioner with a clear direction to treat the period of suspension of the petitioner as “on duty” , this Court opines that the 3 rd respondent is bound to reconsider the request of the petitioner to assign notional seniority on par with his batch mates who were appointed by transfer from TSSP on 08.04.2012. 9. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents c) Proceedings vide Rc.No.R/74/ App/ 2016, (ROO No.160/ 2016), dated 25.06.2016 of the 2nd respondent (referred to and extracted above). d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) e) The impugned proceedings, dated 10.10.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent denying the request of the petitioner mechanically. d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) e) The impugned proceedings, dated 10.10.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent denying the request of the petitioner mechanically. This Court opines that there is no justification in the impugned proceedings Memo, C.No.3768/ A1/ 2022, dated 10.10.2022 issued by the 3 rd respondent herein and accordingly, the same is set-aside and the 3 rd respondent is directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner to assign notional seniority on par with his batch mates who were appointed by transfer from TSSP on 08.04.2012 in accordance to law within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allow ed . How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.