Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Naveen Rao, J.
Y Rajasekhar S/o Y Rama Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and Rep by its Principal Secretary Home Department and others – Respondents
W.P. No.1439 of 2021
Decided On : 01-02-2021
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 7 - Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996 - Working as Inspector of Police - Promotion - Cadre - Petitioner is working as Inspector of Police and aspiring for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police - Exercise is being undertaken by the respondents to effect promotions to post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and apprehending that he is not likely to be considered for promotion on account of pending criminal case against him, this writ petition is instituted praying to direct respondents to consider petitioner for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police in accordance with his seniority in cadre of Inspector of Police and in accordance with G O Ms No. 257 General Administration (Services C) Department dated - Petitioner contends that he conducted investigation, arrested accused and produced them in Court for judicial remand and prepared charge sheet in case - While so, person by name father stated to have visited police station and requested petitioner to ensure release of his son and offered money - Upon refusal by petitioner, said placed in bag of petitioner without his knowledge - On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed - Petitioner is facing trial in CC No. 16 of 2015 in Court of Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases - Whether petitioner was earlier considered for promotion and was over looked - Whether he was earlier considered for promotion, therefore, question of considering him for granting ad-hoc promotion also does not arise.
Findings of the court :
Policy of Government is clear and unambiguous; that Government does not intend to grant promotion even on ad hoc basis if allegations leveled against employee/officer are grave and that such officer/employee is facing enquiry/trial/investigation - Since, what is alleged against petitioner is demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for doing official favour, the exception carved out is also not attracted - Court reviewed precedent decisions on all aspects concerning grievance of employees against not granting promotion to them on the ground that disciplinary proceedings and/or criminal proceedings are pending - Operative portion of order in above two writ petitions - Petitioner asks for consideration of his case in accordance with and on other hand he seeks direction to ignore pendency of criminal case while considering him for promotion - Both cannot go hand in hand - As noticed above, G.O.Ms No. categorizes employees on various parameters and consideration of employee facing disciplinary action/ criminal action depends on fitting into those parameters - If allegation is grave, such as demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as in this case, question of granting promotion even on ad hoc basis, does not arise - In instant case, petitioner has not disclosed as to whether he was earlier considered for promotion, therefore, question of considering him for granting ad-hoc promotion also does not arise.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
2. Petitioner is working as Inspector of Police and aspiring for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Having come to know that exercise is being undertaken by the respondents to effect promotions to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and apprehending that he is not likely to be considered for promotion on account of pending criminal case against him, this writ petition is instituted praying to direct the respondents to consider petitioner for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police in accordance with his seniority in the cadre of Inspector of Police and in accordance with G O Ms No. 257 General Administration (Services C) Department dated 10.6.1999 and without reference to CC No. 16 of 2015 pending in the Court of the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases at Hyderabad. Petitioner also seeks direction to consider representation submitted by him on 19.1.2021 requesting to consider him for promotion on same lines as prayed in this writ petition.
3. Facts as narrated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition disclose that while he was working in Nampally police station, he was entrusted with the responsibility to conduct investigation in Crime No. 256 of 2013 wherein persons by name Sadiq Hussain and Shahbaz Hussain @ Gullu Bhai were shown as accused. Petitioner contends that he conducted investigation, arrested the accused and produced them in the Court for judicial remand and prepared the charge sheet in the case. While so, person by name Sadiq Hussain father of Shahbaz Hussain @ Gullu Bhai stated to have visited the police station and requested the petitioner to ensure release of his son and offered money. Upon refusal by the petitioner, said Sadiq Hussain placed Rs. 20,000/- in the bag of the petitioner without his knowledge. Crime No. 34/ACB-CR-1/2013 was registered on 24.1.2013 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the ACB City Range, Hyderabad police station showing the petitioner as accused. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. The petitioner is facing trial in CC No. 16 of 2015 in the Court of the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases at Hyderabad.
4. According to averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, no disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner. However, after the incident, petitioner was placed under suspension but later reinstated into service.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that what is alleged against the petitioner is false, made vindictively by the father of accused only to ensure that petitioner would not investigate seriously into the allegations leveled against his son and as petitioner was not obliging to let of son of the complainant.
6. He further submits that for no fault of him, there is no progress in the criminal case, therefore, petitioner cannot be further harassed and humiliated by denying him promotion as per his eligibility and suitability. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court in writ petitions filed by employees claiming promotion without reference to pending disciplinary proceedings.
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home asserts that since petitioner is facing trial in a criminal case on grave allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to do official favour, he is not entitled for granting promotion and pending criminal case cannot be ignored while assessing suitability of petitioner for promotion.
8. There is no mention in the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to whether petitioner was earlier considered for promotion and was over looked. In the present writ petition, there is no challenge to the criminal proceedings even on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding the trial and therefore, Court is not going
An employee has right for consideration for promotion, but has no right to ask promotion as a matter of course
Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right when a criminal case is pending against an employee, despite the right to be considered for promotion.
Denial of promotion based on mere inquiry without formal charges is arbitrary and violates the right to be considered for promotion under Article 16(1).
An employee's right to promotion cannot be denied solely based on the pendency of criminal proceedings; they are entitled to consideration for promotion unless a charge-sheet has been issued.
Service Law – Denial of promotion - while every employee has a right to have his case considered for promotion, which is a guarantee flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, an e....
The court upheld the Corporation's promotion policy, which prohibits promotions during the pendency of criminal proceedings against an employee.
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
