Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/20785/2014 of M.Venkateswarlu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2024
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20785/2014 Between: M.venkateswarlu, ...PETITIONER AND The Government Of Andhra
APHC010367532014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3457]
TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 20785/2014
Between:
M.venkateswarlu,
...PETITIONER
AND
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.CHALLA SIVASANKAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.E V JAGANNADHA RAO (SC FOR AP STATE HOUSEING COOP LTD)
2.M RAVINDRANATH REDDY(SC FOR APSHC)
3.GP FOR HOUSING (AP)
The Court made the following:
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:-
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner virtually online.
2. The petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner as Assistant Engineer on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings pending against him. The petitioner was implicated in an Anti-Corruption case. The petitioner was tried in C.C.No.5 of 2005 and was also acquitted by the Special Judge for ACB Cases on 16.10.2007.
3. The respondents promoted 371 Work Inspectors on 15.01.2009. However, the petitioner was not considered for promotion on account of the pendency of departmental proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has so far not been extended the promotion.
5. The respondents have not filed any counter, though the writ petition is filed in the year 2014.
6. It is a settled proposition of law that the pendency of departmental proceedings or criminal cases should not come in the way of the employer in extending the promotion to the eligible employee. The respondents shall extend the promotion to the petitioner without reference to the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against him. The departmental proceedings were instituted on the involvement of the petitioner in an Anti-Corruption case.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that disciplinary proceedings are also concluded.
8. It is also evident that the petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case and that the judgment has become final.
9. In these circumstances, this Court finds no justification in the action of the respondents in not extending the promotion as the petitioner.
10. With these observations, the respondents are hereby directed to extend the promotions to the petitioner on par with other work inspectors.
11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N