Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6690/2024 of M VENKATARAMANA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 3 February 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 6690/2024 Between: 1. M VENKATARAMANA, SON OF M.MUTHYALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC
APHC010101742024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 6690/2024
Between:
1. M VENKATARAMANA, SON OF M.MUTHYALAPPA, AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS, OCC INSPECTOR OF POLICE (COMMUNICATIONS), OFFICE OF DISTRICT POLICE COMMUNICATIONS, KADAPA, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
HOME
DEPARTMENT,
A.P.
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TECHNICAL SERVICES, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the i) Charge memo C.N0.687/A3/APPCO/2018 N0.II/PR/2017-18
dated 03.07.2018 and the consequential orders issued vide 2)
C.N0.687/A3/APPCO/2018 N0.II/PR/2018 dated 24.09.2018 wherein the punishment of PPI for 1 year without cumulative effect and treating the period of absence as EOL 3) D.Dis.No.i28/T3/20i9 dated 31.08.2020 dated 31.08.2020 in modifying the punishment to that of censure and rejecting the review petition vide Memo No.i638468/Ser.I/AI/2023 dated 09.02.2023 by the pt respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and total non-application of mind by setting aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector as per the Senior List dated 24.10.2018 and also as per the orders in W.A.N0.1158 of 2016 dated 21.11.2016 and W.P.N0.3312 of 2019 dated 13.03.2019 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Communication) without reference to the censure punishment imposed vide D.Dis.No.i28/T3/20i9 dated 31.08.2020 of the 2nd respondent by taking into account the leave period down in W.A.N0.1158 of 2016 dated 21.11.2016 read with orders in W.P.N0.3312 of 2019 dated 13.03.2019 and the interim order passed in W.P.N0.41832 of 2022 dated 27.12.2022, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K RAJYA LAKSHMI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is field under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “…pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the i) Charge memo C.No687/A3/APPCO/2018 N0 II/PR/201718, dated 03.07.2018 and the consequential orders issued vide
C.No.687/A3/APPCO/2018 N0 II/PR/2018, dated 24.09.2018 wherein the punishment of PPI for 1 year without cumulative effect and treating the period of absence as EOL 3) D.Dis.No.128/T3/2019, dated 31.08.2020, in modifying the punishment to that of censure and rejecting the review petition vide Memo No.1638468/Ser I/AI/2023 dated 09.02.2023 by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and total non-application of mind by setting aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector as per the Senior List dated 24.10.2018 and also as per the orders in W.A.No.1158 of 2016 dated 21.11.2016 and W.P.No.3312 of 2019 dated 13.03.2019 and pass…”
2. The Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in issuing charge memo dated 03.07.2018 and consequential orders issued dated 24.09.2018, wherein the punishment of P.P.I. for a period of one year without cumulative effect and taking the period of absence from 07.02.2017 and modify the punishment to that of censure and rejecting the review petition dated 09.02.2023 by the respondent as illegal, arbitrary.
3. The core issue involved in this Writ Petition is that the respondents have considered and modified the punishment of censure. Once the punishment is modified as censure, the respondents have to consider treating that censure is not currency of punishment for a period of one year. The said aspect was considered by the full Bench of Madras High Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench of Composite High Court in Ch.Prakash Rao vs. Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, State of Telangana in W.A.No.1158 of 2016 in which the operative portion reads as follows:
“A Full Bench of the Madras High Court, in Deputy Inspector General of Police, Thanjavur Range, Thanjavur and another v. V.Rani (2011 (3) CTC 129) had an occasion to consider whether the penalty of censure would have a currency. The same was also with reference in Government instructions that gave a currency of one year for the penalty of censure insofar as the employees of the Government of Tamilnadu were concerned. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the instructions that gave currency of one year to the penalty of censure.
Though the Government Memo or circular providing for a currency of one year for the penalty of censure is not under challenge before us, the fact remains that giving currency of one year for a penalty of censure would tantamount to equating the penalty to postponement of increment for one year. Censure or warning is normally considered as a lesser penalty than the penalty of postponement of increment for one year. Therefore, both cannot have the same period of currency.
Since the learned Government Pleader seeks time to file counter on the above aspects, we adjourn the matter to 19.12.2016. However, in the meantime, the respondents shall take it that the penalty of censure shall not be treated as having a currency for a period of one year and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without reference to the currency of penalty and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. This is subject to the satisfaction of the other parameters.”
4. Considering the above observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench and without going into the merits, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the panel year 2019 - 2020 without taking the censure of punishment as currency of the particular paragraphs mentioned above and pass appropriate orders.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 04.02.2026 M K K
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION No.6690 of 2024
Dated: 04.02.2026
M K K