Back
2020 Supreme(AP) 644
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
T. Kiran Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 23861 of 2020
Decided On: 21.12.2020
For the Appellant : R. Satyanarayana Murthy
In cases involving moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement, and grave dereliction of duty, the appointing authority may consider it against public interest to allow ad hoc promotion to the charged officer, as per Para 6 of G.O.Ms. No. 257, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 10.06.1999.
Headnote:
PROMOTION - JUNIOR ASSISTANT - EXCISE DEPARTMENT - G.O.MS. NO. 257, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SER. C) DEPT, DT. 10.06.1999 - APPLICABILITY - CRIMINAL CASE PENDING - GRAVE DERELICTION OF DUTY - AD HOC PROMOTION - DENIAL - JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Junior Assistant in the Prohibition and Excise Department, challenged the denial of promotion to the post of Excise Sub-Inspector despite his seniority, due to the pendency of a criminal case against him for grave offenses under various sections of the A.P. Excise Act and A.P. Denatured Spirituous Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner's involvement in grave offenses, taking advantage of his official capacity, constituted a grave dereliction of duty, disentitling him from promotion. The court found that the petitioner's case fell within the exception for ad hoc appointment as per Para 6 of G.O. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999, which permits denial of promotion in cases involving moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement, and grave dereliction of duty.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner, despite the pendency of a criminal case for grave offenses, was entitled to promotion under G.O.Ms. No. 257, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 10.06.1999? 2. Whether the petitioner's involvement in grave offenses constituted a grave dereliction of duty, disentitling him from promotion?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. G.O.Ms. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999, permits ad hoc promotion of employees facing disciplinary or criminal proceedings, but exempts cases involving moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement, and grave dereliction of duty. 2. The petitioner's involvement in grave offenses, taking advantage of his official capacity, constituted a grave dereliction of duty, disentitling him from promotion under the exception in G.O.Ms. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the denial of promotion to the petitioner was justified due to the pendency of a criminal case for grave offenses and the grave dereliction of duty involved in his actions.
ORDER :
M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the proceedings in Rc. No. 80/2018/A2, dated 25.09.2019 issued by the 3rd respondent and declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice, requesting to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Excise Sub-Inspector without reference to the charge Memo dated 14.09.2018 and criminal case in C.C. No. 200 of 2019 in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 257, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 10.06.1999.
2. The facts leading to the case are that the petitioner joined in service on 23.01.2008 as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds, he joined at Tenali, Guntur District and working as such with utmost satisfaction of the superiors without any complaints whatsoever. The 3rd respondent issued provisional seniority list on 19.01.2012 in which the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 204, thereafter the 3rd respondent issued proceedings dated 21.12.2013 wherein final seniority list was issued in which the petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 203.
3. While so, on 07.02.2018 a FIR was issued to the petitioner vide PR No. 6/2018 and the Excise Department filed a case against the petitioner along with others and the petitioner was shown in the said FIR as Accused No. 11. The 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 07.02.2018 wherein the petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground of liquor was detected vide PR No. 06/2018 of Repalle Prohibition and Excise Station. The 4th respondent addressed a letter to the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Tenali, dated 15.02.2018, wherein it is clearly stated that the suspension is w.e.f., 07.02.2018.
4. The 4th respondent issued suspension revised proceedings dated 20.03.2018 and the same was confirmed w.e.f., 07.02.2018. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent issued the Articles of charges on 14.09.2018 in which one charge was framed and the petitioner made a representation requesting for reinstatement on 20.09.2018. An enquiry officer was appointed vide proceedings dated 29.09.2018. The 4th respondent issued proceedings dated 03.10.2018, wherein the petitioner was reinstated into service pending disciplinary case and criminal case. The Department has also filed a case which is registered as C.C. No. 200/2019 pending on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge at Repalle, Guntur District, in which the petitioner was shown as Accused No. 11.
5. As the petitioner was not promoted and his juniors were promoted to the post of Excise Sub-Inspector, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent and his representation was disposed of vide order in Rc. No. 80/2018/A2, dated 25.09.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner observing as follows:-
"Accordingly, the individuals at Sl. Nos. 204 to 219 in the seniority list of JAs were promoted as P&ESIs as per their eligibility vide reference 5th cited and the name of Sri T. Kiran Kumar was deferred for promotion in light of the following Government Orders.
i) G.O.Ms. No. 66, GA (Services. C) Dept, dt. 30.01.1991.
ii) G.O.Ms. No. 424, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 25.05.1976.
iii) G.O.Ms. No. 257, General Administration (Ser. C) Dept, dt. 10.06.1999."
6. It is now contended that the proceedings are illegal as the Government Order itself permits ad hoc promotion to the Junior Assistants in Prohibition and Excise Department and drawn the attention of this Court to the G.O.Ms. No. 257, dated 10.06.1999. On the basis of this G.O., the learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the case of this petitioner for promotion. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court with reference to issue a direction to consider the candidature of this petitioner for promotion notwithstanding the pendency of disciplinary proceedings as well as criminal case in C.C. No. 200/2019 pending o
