The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings initiated against an officer must be based on valid grounds and not used as a means to curtail the officer's promotion.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:-

“……to set aside the punishment of censure imposed vie impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.288/02/2020 dated 09.03.2021 and also Memo No.1449695/SER-1/A1/2021 of the 1st Respondent dated: 08.09.2021 rejecting the appeal; as illegal, vindictive, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; apart from violation of principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders……”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Sub- Inspector in the year 1991 and after promoted as Inspector in the year 2006 and further promoted as DSP on 06.01.2012. In fact recognizing the Service of the petitioner the Government has awarded acceleratory promotion as Deputy Superintendent of police on 06.01.2012 and also awarded Indian Police Medal during the year 2017, and also several rewards and commendations besides cash award are awarded to the petitioner.

4. While working under DGP awaiting posting order, the petitioner was attached to the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada city on 20.07.2019 for performing duties for Hon’ble Governor as per the memorandum dated 19.07.2019. After completion of the swearing in ceremony of the Hon’ble Governor, the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada city has posted the petitioner to Traffic-IV by proceedings dated 30.07.2019.

5. While working as A.C.P (Traffic), the petitioner fell ill and applied for medical leave after informing about his illness to Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada and applied medical leave from 23.07.2020 to 01.08.2020. Subsequently, the same was extended up to 08.08.2020. After obtaining the report that he was medically fit from the concerned medical officer, he reported for duty on 09.08.2020.

6. While the petitioner was under the medical leave, the petitioner got a call from the Office of Director General of Police on 31.08.2020 and asked to go out East Godavari District and report before Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, for reporting bundobust. The petitioner had answered, saying that he is under medical leave and he is not in a position to move out. Finally, the petitioner was relieved from Commissioner of Police on 19.09.2020.

7. Even before the relieving from the Commissioner of Police, a Memorandum dated 03.08.2020, was issued along with two others, seeking explanation on the pain of taking disciplinary action for not reporting before Superintendent of Police, East Godavari. To the said notice the petitioner gave his explanation on 09.08.2020, stating that the petitioner was on medical leave on intimation to the Commissioner of Police. As per the memorandum dated 19.10.2020, for proposing action against the petitioner under Rule 22 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA Rules), 1991 alleging that the petitioner have exhibited gross misconduct and violated Rule 3 of the A.P. CS conduct Rules 1964, issued an impugned proceedings dated 09.03.2021 imposing a punishment of censure.

Though the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1, appeal was rejected without appreciating the grounds raised in it, vide proceedings dated 08.09.2021.

8. Sri C.Srinivasa Baba, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it is not in dispute that the petitioner is the senior most eligible candidate for appointment for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police as per the panel year 2019-2020. Only to deny the promotion to the post of Additional superintendent of Police the respondents have initiated the present action against the petitioner by issuing notice and imposing punishment of censure by proceedings dated 09.03.2021. By virtue of that the respondents have not considered the promotion of the petitioner, while the persons junior to the petitioner were considered.

9. Learned c