Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
PULLA KARTHIK
Ch. Sanjeeva Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Roads and Building Department & Housing – Respondent
ORDER :
Pulla Karthik, J.
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“…to pass any other order or orders, more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus,
a. Declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering and thereby denying promotion to the post of Assistant Estate Officer on the ground of pending disciplinary charges i.e., Memo no.90/B7/VO/2007 dated 15.05.2010, a memo vide no.1879/B7/VO/2017 dated 25.09.2021, memo no.8565/B7/V0/2023 dated 07.01.2025 as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the orders issued in G.O. Ms. No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and G.O.Ms.No.529 dated 19.08.2008,
b. And consequentially declare that the Petitioner is entitled to have his claim considered and be promoted to the post of Assistant Estate Officer without prejudice to any charges pending against him in terms of Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999 and G.O. Ms.No.529 dated 19.08.2008 with consequential benefits incidental thereto,
c. and pass…”
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
(a) The petitioner was appointed as a Work Inspector in the year 1988 and was subsequently promoted to the posts of Typist an
The court upheld that an employee does not acquire a right to promotion while facing grave disciplinary charges, allowing administrative discretion in such matters.
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.
Delay in issuing a Charge Memo does not invalidate serious charges; promotion consideration cannot be blocked by ongoing disciplinary actions.
Promotion rights in service law are protected unless a charge sheet has been formally issued; mere contemplation of disciplinary action cannot postpone eligibility.
The court held that re-opening disciplinary proceedings after significant delay violated procedural rules and principles of natural justice, leading to undue prejudice against the petitioner.
The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and the order of punishment imposed against the petitioner did not comply with the requirements of G.O.Ms.No.342, dated 04.08.1997.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that government servants facing disciplinary or court proceedings for promotion should be considered in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, and delay....
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
