WP/25591/2020 of M. Srihari Jagannadh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2020

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief:- “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of District Fire officer on the ground of pending criminal case Vide FIR No.13/RCT-VSP/2015, U/s 7 of P.C Act 1988 dated 08.07.2015 of ACB, Visakhapatnam range, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of District Fire officer without reference to the aforesaid criminal case andpass such other order or orders.”

2. The only grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that his candidature was not considered for being promoted as District Fire Officer after having completed service for 17 years without any remark. But a trap was laid and registered a case in Crime No.13/RCT-VSP/2015, under Section 7 of P.C.Act on 08.07.2015 of ACB, Visaskhapatnam Range, and this petitioner was arrayed as an Accused, alleging that he demanded bribe for doing official favour while he was working as District Fire Officer, GVMC, Visakhapatnam. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner was suspended from service on 13.07.2015. On 16.03.2017, the petitioner was reinstated into service by revoking earlier suspension order with immediate effect without prejudice to the criminal proceedings pending against him. Subsequently, the 2[nd]respondent issued proceedings videRc.No.388/Estb/2017 (ADFO’s) dated 01.11.2018 of the year 2018-2019 for the provisional promotion basing on the seniority list of Assistant District Fire Officers, in which, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.2 of Provisional Seniority list. But the petitioner was denied promotion on the ground that he was indulged in ACB case, and thereby, denial of promotion is illegal, arbitrary and requested to issue necessary direction.

3. Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions of the petition, requested to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for being promoted to the next higher post subject to G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Service-I appearing for the respondents, has readily agreed to dispose of the representation of this petitioner dated 30.11.2020 in accordance with law.

5. As the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner is limited to consider the representation in accordance with law, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I has readily agreed for such consideration in accordance with law, no further adjudication is required in this matter and it would suffice to issue a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 30.11.2020 keeping in view the para-5 of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, within four (04) weeks from today.

6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

___________________________________

M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J.

Date : 31-12-2020 Note: C.C. Monday (b/o)Gvl HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION No.25591 of 2020

Date : 31.12.2020

Gvl