ORDER : The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…. to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not considering the candidature of the petitioner to his further promotional post as Assistant Divisional Engineer under the guise of pending C.C.No.6 of 2010 on the file of Special Judge for ACB Cases at Vijayawada, and even the Departmental enquiry is not yet initiated as similarly situated persons like the petitioner even though criminal cases are pending or departmental proceedings are concluded are promoted to their respective promotional post, even though the punishment awarded as illegal, arbitrary, intentional, deliberate, against law, colourable exercise of powers and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, direct the respondent authorities to consider the candidate of the petitioner to the next promotional post as Assistant Divisional Engineer and pass.…..” 2) The case of the petitioner is that he joined as Assistant Engineer in the A.P. State Electricity Board on 03.11.1998 and subsequently he was absorbed in A.P. Transmission Corporation Limited, respondent No.1 herein. Though he has been discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of the respondents, he was trapped by Anti Corruption Bureau (for short “ACB”) on 23.01.2008 and suspended from service with effect from 29.01.2008. However, after completion of enquiry on 07.06.2010, he was reinstated into service, but still the ACB case in C.C.No.6 of 2010 is pending against him on the file of Special Judge for ACB Cases at Vijayawada. Right from the date of reinstatement, he has been working as Assistant Engineer and as per the revised seniority list prepared by the respondents, his seniority is at Serial No.96 as on 03.12.2009 for promotion to the next post of Assistant Divisional Engineer. Though he is at serial No.96, his juniors, up to serial No.233, are promoted to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer, denying promotion to the petitioner on the ground that an ACB case is pending against him. 3) The grievance of the petitioner is that none of the G.Os or Rules in force debar the employee for further promotion under the guise of pending ACB case. 3) The grievance of the petitioner is that none of the G.Os or Rules in force debar the employee for further promotion under the guise of pending ACB case. Earlier he filed W.P.No.9494 of 2012 for considering his candidature for promotion, however, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition as the writ petition became infructuous as the promotions for the year 2012 were already completed. Now, the respondent authorities are finalizing the list for further promotions as there are clear vacancies to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer in the respondent Corporation. In similar cases, though ACB cases are pending against different persons, as per the orders of the Court, their candidature was considered and promoted for further posts. The grievance of the petitioner is that though, the petitioner is entitled for further promotion on the similar lines, the respondent authorities did not consider his candidature for promotion on the ground that ACB case is pending. The respondent authorities willfully and intentionally ignored the fact that no departmental enquiry is pending against him. As no departmental enquiry is pending against him, the respondent authorities are bound to consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer. Challenging the action of the respondent authorities in not considering the candidature of the petitioner to the further promotion, the present writ petition has been filed. 4) Respondents filed counter affidavit contending that a criminal case was registered by ACB in the year 2008 against the petitioner and he was suspended from service, later in the year 2010, he was reinstated into service. Though ACB case is pending against the petitioner, his name was included in the panel for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2015-16 subject to the result of the disciplinary case, which is pending against him and kept in sealed cover. Hence, his case could not be considered for promotion as ADE (Elecl.) during the above said panel years. The respondents have not considered the cases of persons, who are accused in pending ACB cases, for promotion as ADE (Electrical). Hence, his case could not be considered for promotion as ADE (Elecl.) during the above said panel years. The respondents have not considered the cases of persons, who are accused in pending ACB cases, for promotion as ADE (Electrical). Vide T.O.O. (Addl.Secy-Per) Ms.No.270 dated 11.02.2010, the AP Transco has adopted the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.66 GA (Services-C) Department dated 30.01.1991, wherein it has been mentioned that promotion/appointment by transfer to a higher post in respect of officers, who are facing a criminal case shall be deferred only when a charge sheet has been filed against him/her in a criminal Court. Since charge sheet is filed against the petitioner herein before the ACB Court, his candidature has been deferred for promotion to the next cadre. Further, as per Regulation 3 (B) (ii) of APSEBs Service Regulations part-III as adopted by AP Transco, an employee against whom disciplinary cases/criminal cases are pending may be included in the panel subject to the result of the said cases and kept the same in the sealed cover. Further, vide Proceedings No.CGM (HRD & Trg)/DE/DC-II/2008 dated 11.02.2009 prosecution sanction orders were issued to DG/ACB to prosecute the accused officer in a Court of law. They have filed charge sheet against the writ petitioner in the Court of the Special Judge for ACB Cases. As per the directions of Government in Memo dated 03.11.2008, the SE/Enquiries/VS/Hyderabad was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegation of non-submission of property returns during the tenure of his service and thereby contravened Rule 5 of APSEB Employees Conduct Regulations and also found that he was in possession of Rs.10,300/- inexplicable cash with him on the date of the trap. A report from the SE/Enquiries is received and in the Enquiry Report, it is concluded that the charge of possession of Rs.10,300/- inexplicable cash with him on the date of the trap is established. After conducting due enquiry, final orders were issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 16.05.2016 by awarding punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. Though the ACB case is pending against the petitioner, his name was included in the panels for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2015-16 subject to result of disciplinary case/criminal case as per Service Regulations, but however kept in sealed cover. Though the ACB case is pending against the petitioner, his name was included in the panels for the years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2015-16 subject to result of disciplinary case/criminal case as per Service Regulations, but however kept in sealed cover. After finalization of the ACB case, his name will be considered for promotion to the post of ADE as per Regulation 8 (2) (f) of APSEB Service Regulations Part-II, and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5) Petitioner filed additional affidavit contending that C.C.No.6 of 2010 has been transferred to the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram and renumbered as C.C.No.27 of 2018. Government of Andhra Pradesh issued proceedings vide Memo No.565/Vig/2008-14 dated 25.01.2022 ordering departmental inquiry instead of prosecution against the petitioner herein. In pursuance of which, the Special Public Prosecutor, ACB, Eluru Range filed Crl.M.P.No.899 of 2022 in C.C.No.27 of 2018 seeking permission to withdraw the prosecution case against the petitioner, but the same was dismissed on 18.01.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Crl.R.C.No.79 of 2023, wherein the Court vide order dated 19.04.2023 granted interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.27 of 2018. As the petitioner has been doing service for more than 26 years without any remark except the present ACB case, he is entitled for promotion to the next higher post and requested to allow the writ petition. 6) Heard Sri Metta Chandrasekhar Rao for Sri K.Dharmarao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.V.Satish, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7) Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contentions as per the affidavit, would submit that the petitioner is eligible for promotion as per the seniority list, however, the same was not considered. Further, He would also submit that as the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued proceedings vide Memo No.565/Vig/2008-14 dated 25.01.2022 ordering departmental inquiry instead of prosecution against the petitioner herein, he is entitled to promotion on par with his juniors, who were already promoted. 8) Sri V.V.Satish, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, while reiterating the contentions as per the counter affidavit would submit that C.C.No.6 of 2010 has been transferred to the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram and renumbered as C.C.No.27 of 2018, which is pending. 8) Sri V.V.Satish, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2, while reiterating the contentions as per the counter affidavit would submit that C.C.No.6 of 2010 has been transferred to the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of SPE and ACB Cases, Rajamahendravaram and renumbered as C.C.No.27 of 2018, which is pending. He would also submit that the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.66 General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 30.01.1991, regarding promotion/ appointment of employees to higher posts while investigations/disciplinary proceedings initiated are pending, and the same was adopted by the respondents vide T.O.O. (Addl.Secy-Per) Ms.No.270 dated 11.02.2010. He further contended that the petitioner’s case for promotion will be considered strictly as per the Rules. 9) As seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding registering a case by the ACB officials against the petitioner and the same was numbered as C.C.No.27of 2018 (old C.C.No.6 of 2010) and it is pending. There is also no dispute about the punishment of “stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect besides treating the period of suspension as suspension on the allegation of non submission of property return and possession of Rs.10,300/- inexplicable cash” was imposed against the petitioner vide Memo dated 16.05.2016. 10) The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 30.01.1991 to consider the cases for promotion while investigations/disciplinary proceedings are pending. The said G.O. was issued considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in C.O. Armugam and others Vs. State of Tamilnadu and others, [1991 Supp (2) SCC 199]. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case held thus: “5. As to the merits of the matter, it is necessary to state that every civil servant has a right to have his case considered for promotion according to his turn and it is a guarantee flowing from Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The consideration of promotion could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To avoid arbitrariness, it would be better to follow certain uniform principles. The promotion of persons against whom a charge has been framed in the disciplinary proceedings or charge sheet has been filed in criminal case may be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. They must, however, be considered for promotion if they are exonerated or acquitted of the charges. To avoid arbitrariness, it would be better to follow certain uniform principles. The promotion of persons against whom a charge has been framed in the disciplinary proceedings or charge sheet has been filed in criminal case may be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. They must, however, be considered for promotion if they are exonerated or acquitted of the charges. If found suitable, they shall then be given the promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted.” 11) On consideration of the above observations, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 30.01.1991, wherein it was mentioned thus: “5. Government, however, hereby direct that promotion/appointment by transfer to a higher post in respect of officers who are facing disciplinary proceedings or a criminal case or whose conduct is under investigation and whose case falls under the group referred to in para 2 (iii) of the G.O. first read above, shall be deferred , only when charges of misconduct are framed by the competent authority and served on the concerned delinquent officer, or a charge-sheet has been filed against him in criminal court, as the case may be.” 12) Thus, a perusal of para 5 of the G.O. would manifest that if a charge sheet is filed and a criminal case is pending, or even framing of charges in the departmental proceedings, the promotion of the employee shall be deferred. Later the Government also issued G.O.Ms.No. 257 dated 10.06.1999. 13) In “ Umesh Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., [2022 SC OnLine All 637] ”, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “…… this Court is of the firm view that mere pendency of a criminal case coupled with this fact that petitioner has been permitted to continue in service and also granted promotion, cannot be a ground for denying promotion. Further, additional fact may be taken into consideration i.e. subsequent service record of petitioner while opening the sealed cover envelop and in case subsequent service record of petitioner is found excellent, unblemished, without any punishment, the same should have been an additional ground to grant him promotion.” 14) The order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad is not binding on this Court. 15) In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in “ S. Shankar Prasad Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh ( W.A.No.384 of 2020 )”. The said appeal was preferred against the order dated 13.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.8991 of 2020, wherein learned single Judge observed that pendency of criminal case or the departmental proceedings is not a ground to deny promotion to the writ petitioner therein in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, General Administration (SER.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, however, dismissed the Writ Petition only on the ground that in terms of Standing Order No.74.2 of the Police Manual, which is a special law governing the service of the petitioner, lays down that because of criminal cases and disciplinary proceedings, he is not fit to be considered for promotion, as special law overrides general law. In the writ appeal No.384 of 2020, the Division Bench of this Court held that the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual is not a special law and directed the respondent authorities therein to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 16) In “ N. Srinivasulu Vs. State of Telangana, [2021 SCC OnLine TS 3528] ”, relied upon by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the Division Bench of High Court of Telangana, after considering the entire law on the subject, held as follows: “Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, the office memorandum, which is of the year 1976 vintage has got no meaning. The law has been crystallized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it is not a case of an officer, who is facing a singular departmental enquiry, but it is a case of an officer, who is facing two departmental enquiries that too wherein the charge sheet has been issued for imposition of major punishment. Not only this, he has involved in criminal case and he is facing criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Not only this, he has involved in criminal case and he is facing criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Granting permission to such an officer would amount to granting of premium to such officers and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the State Government was well within its power to reject the claim of the appellant for ad hoc promotion also” 17) The law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case, as in the present case also, the petitioner herein is facing criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Granting promotion to such an officer would amount to granting of premium. 18) No doubt, while a right to be considered for promotion is a statutory or fundamental right, however, promotion is not a fundamental right. (Vide: Government of West Bengal & others Vs Dr. Amal Satpathi & others, [SLP (Civil) 43488 of 2023] . Hardev Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. , [ (2011) 10 SCC 121 ] . ) 19) In the case at hand, as discussed supra, C.C.No.6 of 2010 (renumbered as C.C.No.27 of 2018) is pending against the petitioner as on today. The respondents in the counter affidavit pleaded that the case of the petitioner will be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 30.01.1991. Thus, the petitioner as a matter of right, cannot claim promotion pending criminal case against him. 20) In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. 21) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 22) Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence.