Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.
Udaragondi Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No.16658 OF 2020
Decided on : 15-02-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 16, 21, 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Benefit of promotion – Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly, the Respondent No.5 in issuing the Articles of Charges in C. after a long delay of 5 years 9 months from the alleged date of incident of misconduct to deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioner for the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) and to negate the order passed by this Court in W.P in favour of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department and G.O.Ms.No.529 General Administration (SER.C) Department and consequently to set aside/quash the Articles of Charges issued in C. against the Petitioner for huge and inordinate delay and latches.
Finding of court: There are special rules governing the service conditions or promotions of police officers and those rules will prevail over the general rules and placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in N. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020 (6) ALD 410. In the facts of the above judgment, the question was non-consideration of the petitioner’s candidature for promotion to the next higher cadre. – This Court adverted to Clause (2) of Standing Order 74 of A.P. Police Manual and held that, the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual will prevail, as special law, governing the police officials. – But, in the present case, consideration of this petitioner for promotion is not a question. – Therefore, the Court need not record any finding as to the entitlement of this petitioner to claim promotion to the next higher cadre, since the question involved in this writ petition is only about delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings. – Hence, the judgment in N. Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra) cannot be applied to the present facts of the case. – It was well settled that there was no vested right to promotion, but a right to be considered for promotion in accordance with Rules which prevail on date on which consideration for promotion takes place. – Apex Court held that, there was no Rule of universal application to effect that, vacancies must necessarily be filled in on basis of law which existed on date when they arose. – But, the principle laid down in the above judgment is of no assistance to this petitioner, since this Court is not called upon to decide the aspect of consideration for promotion of this petitioner to the next higher cadre. – Reasons explained by the respondents, by applying the balancing test and taking into consideration of the factors in favour of the respondents, in the absence of any prejudice likely to be caused to this petitioner in defending himself in the departmental enquiry, court find that it is not a fit case to quash the Articles of Charges in C. – However, the respondents are under legal obligation to complete the departmental enquiry, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than six months from the date of appointing an Enquiry Officer.
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed
ORDER :
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly, the Respondent No.5 in issuing the Articles of Charges in C.No. 21/PR/2014 dated 18.03.2020 after a long delay of 5 years 9 months from the alleged date of incident of misconduct to deny the benefit of promotion to the petitioner for the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) and to negate the order dated 29.08.2019 passed by this Court in W.P No.12495 of 2019 in favour of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.529 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 19.08.2008 and consequently to set aside/quash the Articles of Charges issued in C.No.21/PR/2014 dated 18.03.2020 against the Petitioner for huge and inordinate delay and latches.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Reserve Sub-Inspector. Thereafter, his services were converted into that of Sub-Inspector (Civil) on 03.03.2009. The Petitioner, while he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhavanipuram Police Station, Vijayawada, was falsely implicated into an ACB case and an FIR was registered against him in Crime No.12/RCT-ACB-VJA-2014 of ACB, Vijayawada Range dated 19.06.2014, for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In view of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner was suspended from service vide Suspension Proceedings dated 20.06.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide proceedings dated 20.06.2016. Moreover, the first respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.381 Home (SC.A) Department dated 10.05.2017 dropping the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and directed to conduct a departmental enquiry as there were certain discrepancies in the investigation. The criminal proceedings in Crime No.12/RCT-ACB-VJA-2014 of ACB, Vijayawada Range dated 19.06.2014 on the file of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Vijayawada in R.C.S.No.6 of 2018 dated 21.08.2018 were closed against this petitioner though R.C.S No.6 of 2018 dated 21.08.2018. Thus, as on date, no criminal proceedings are pending against this petitioner.
3. It is contended that a seniority list was prepared by the third respondent and the final seniority list was also approved. The petitioner herein was placed at "Serial No.23" in the Final seniority list of ‘Eluru' Range. However, the persons who stand much below in the seniority list to the petitioner were promoted vide proceedings dated 06.05.2016 and 30.08.2016. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of his case for promotion, the petitioner herein approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, filed O.A.No.798 of 2018. The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal was pleased to dismiss O.A.No.798 of 2018 filed by the petitioner vide order dated 24.04.2018. Aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 24.04.2018, W.P.No.16256 of 2018 was preferred before this Court and this Court vide order dated 27.06.2018 was pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999.
4. The second respondent vide proceedings RC.No.789/E1/2018 dated 21.05.2019 requested the fourth Respondent-to promote' eight Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil) as Inspectors of Police (Civil) to the available clear vacancies. All the eight candidates who were proposed for promotion are junior to the petitioner and were placed much below in the approved final seniority list of Eluru range. The case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents inspite of the orders of this Court.
5. Aggrieved by the action of r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
