The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for due process in deferring promotions in cases of pending disciplinary and criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need for charges of misconduct to be framed or a charge sheet to be filed before deferring promotion.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to set aside the speaking order issued in Rc.No.1131/G3/2021 dated 16.03.2022 by 2nd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of G.O.M.s.No.66 General Administration (Services-C) Department dated 30.01.1991 apart from violation of legal position.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially recruited as Sub Inspector of Police(S.I) in the year 1989 and allotted to Zone II, subsequently got promoted as Inspector on 02.03.2000 with notional date of promotion as Inspector w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and later, promoted to the position of Deputy Superintendent of Police(Dy.S.P.) on 10-05-2010 with notional seniority from 01-05-2009. He was further promoted as Addl. Superintendent of Police (Addl.SP) Vide G.O.Ms.No.7 Home(SER-I) Department dated 28-01-2015 with notional seniority as Addl.SP w.e.f. 01-06-2012, but subsequently pulled down in the seniority list dated 03-06-2021 to 02-09-2014. As per G.O.Ms.No.7 Home (SER-I) Department dated: 28-01-2015, the petitioner has been discharging his duties as Addl.SP from 27-06-2015.

4. While so, the 1st respondent has issued series of final seniority lists of Deputy Superintendent of Police varying the dates, some efforts were made to revert the petitioner to the post of Dy.S.P. Then, the petitioner approached the combined Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh by filing W.P.No.41346/2018, wherein the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to let the petitioner continue as Addl.SP.

5. Thereafter, on 03.06.2021 the 1st Respondent has issued provisional seniority list of Addl. SP, wherein Petitioner name was included at SI.No.19 with a peculiar remark that 'petitioner’s promotion would be defer until termination of charges pending against him’. To the said observation, petitioner has submitted his objection. But without considering the said objection, petitioner was totally removed from the final seniority list vide G.O.Ms.No.70 Home (Service-I) Department dated: 07-07-2021. A note was included in the seniority list stating that his seniority would be reviewed subject to the outcome of case pending before Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in the rank of Addl.SP. and also that petitioner not entitled to claim seniority till finalization of the case before Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings. Again, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing W.P.No.17627/2021 questioning the protracted Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide TEC.No.14/2013 dated: 06-12-2013 on various grounds.

6. The issue of liquor case was subject matter of litigation before the Honb’le High Court and the Hon’ble Court quashed charge memos relating to several persons with regard to the same issue including an Inspector who worked under the petitioner while he was Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, West on the ground of protracted disciplinary proceedings. The Prohibition & Excise Department has given G.O.Ms.No.466 of the Revenue (Ex.I) Department, A.P. dated: 06-09-2018 promoting everyone as per the Memo issued by the Revenue Department dated: 19-07-2018 vide Government Memo No.376867/Ex.1/2006. The same is being placed against the petitioner for consideration of his claim for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre). Against the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.17627/2021 and this Court has passed an interim order directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police(Non-Cadre) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, G.A (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.99, without reference to the Charge Memo dated 06.12.2013 in T.E.C. No.14 of 2013. As the respondents are not implementing the direction of t