Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K. V. Ramana Reddy vs The Deputy Inspector General Of Police on 19 September, 2019

Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
                                  AND
  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                   Writ Petition No.16125 of 2018

ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy) This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, seeking writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion and in not issuing order of promotion and posting order in the cadre of Inspector of Police, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also to declare that the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.3244 of 2017 dated 27.03.2018 as erroneous and thereby to set aside the same and issue consequential directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and issue order of promotion and posting order in the cadre of Inspector of Police, in the existing vacancy.

(2) Facts relevant to dispose of the Writ Petition may briefly be stated as follows:

The petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 15.07.1991 in Zone-II and he worked in various places as Sub-Inspector of Police in Zone-II. (3) According to the petitioner, the concerned authorities did not prepare the seniority list in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police earlier as per Rules and therefore, promotion was not given to the petitioner as Inspector of Police, while his juniors 2 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

were promoted. It is further stated that even though the petitioner was fully eligible and qualified for promotion as Inspector of Police at that time, promotion was not given to him at the time of giving promotion to his juniors on 04.04.2006 and as the seniority list was not prepared for many years for effecting regular promotions, he had no occasion to put forth his grievance with regard to his promotion after his juniors were promoted as Inspectors of Police.

(4) Pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Contempt Case filed by one Mr.Ananth Reddy, the composite State of Andhra Pradesh prepared panels and seniority lists in the cadre of Inspector of Police vide G.O.Ms.No.54 Home (Ser-I) Department, dated 22.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 Home (Ser-I) Department, dated 18.07.2014 and according to the petitioner the said seniority list was hurriedly prepared without including the names of eligible candidates and the name of the petitioner was also not included in the said seniority list. (5) Some of the officers including the Deputy Inspectors of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police filed batch of writ petitions in the High Court seeking a direction to review and revise the seniority list in the cadre of Inspector of Police issued in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 18.07.2014. The said batch of writ 3 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

petitions were disposed of by the Division Bench of the common High Court in W.P.No.9654 of 2016 and batch and the High Court directed to revise the seniority list in the cadre of Inspectors of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police on the ground that the earlier seniority lists were not in accordance with law. This Court also directed to complete the exercise of finalization of revised seniority list within the time stipulated to finalize the seniority list.

(6) The petitioner earlier made representation on 02.09.2015 to the 2nd respondent to consider his case for promotion and seniority in the cadre of Inspector of Police at the time of revising G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 and also requested to review his case for promotion and effect promotion to him from the date when his immediate juniors were promoted as Inspectors of Police. The Head of the Department referred his representation dated 02.09.2015 to the 1st respondent vide memo dated 28.09.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent. Another memo dated 06.08.2016 was also issued to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action to include the name of the petitioner in the seniority and eligibility list in the revised panel as per Rules and procedure in the ongoing revision process of G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 18.07.2014. (7) The authorities concerned considered the grievance of the petitioner and included the name of the petitioner at 4 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

serial No.3363 in the Rectified State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police (Civil) issued in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 18.07.2014 and notional promotion in the cadre of Inspector of Police with effect from 04.04.2006 was issued to the petitioner and thereby they have also restored the seniority of the petitioner on par with his juniors in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police in Zone-II.

(8) It is the case of the petitioner that as the seniority of the petitioner was restored in the cadre of Inspector of Police with effect from 04.04.2006, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to issue order of promotion and order of posting to the petitioner as Inspector of Police with consequential benefits to which he is entitled with effect from 04.04.2006 in the cadre of Inspector of Police with revised pay scales and other consequential benefits.

(9) It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite issuing the aforestated notional promotion and restoring the seniority in the cadre of Inspector of Police with effect from 04.04.2006, the respondents have not given promotion to the petitioner and posting order to him in the cadre of Inspector of Police and they are still continuing the petitioner as Sub-Inspector of Police. According to the petitioner the said action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and on account of the said inaction on the 5 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

part of the respondents, the petitioner is still constrained to work in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police under his juniors, who are already promoted to the cadre of Inspector of Police.

(10) In the above background, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.3244 of 2017, seeking a direction to the respondents to issue order of promotion and order of posting to the petitioner as Inspector of Police with effect from 04.04.2006. The Tribunal directed the concerned authorities to secure some more information regarding release of the State-wide Integrated Seniority List. Accordingly, by way of memo dated 04.12.2017, the said information was also furnished as sought by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal dismissed the said O.A. on the ground that the petitioner is facing prosecution in criminal cases and undergoing punishments in various departmental enquiries currently. (11) According to the learned counsel no such proceedings of minor punishments were pending as on 04.04.2006 and even as on today, all the minor punishments are not in force, and as regards criminal cases are concerned, they are pending for long time and it is not a valid reason to deny promotion to the petitioner and to give posting order to him to work as Inspector of Police, particularly, as his name is included in the seniority list of Inspectors of Police and the Tribunal 6 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

erroneously dismissed the O.A. without considering these aspects. The petitioner contends that he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the aforestated relief.

(12) We have heard Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents.

(13) The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1991 in Zone-II and all his juniors were promoted as Inspectors of Police long back on 04.04.2006 itself and he was not given promotion at that time and that even after including his name in the Rectified State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police (Civil) issued in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 18.07.2014 at serial No.3363 he was not given promotion as Inspector of Police and posting order was also not given to him in the cadre of Inspector of Police and as such he is constrained to work as Sub-Inspector of Police even as on today. It is his case that by including his name in the Rectified State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police in the above G.Os, he was given promotion as Inspector of Police notionally. In other words, it is his case that with the very inclusion of his name in the above mentioned Rectified State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police tantamounts and giving 7 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

promotion to him with effect from 04.04.2006 his seniority also stood restored from the said date and as such an order of promotion along with order of posting in the cadre of Inspector of Police is to be given to him and the respondents are not issuing any such order of promotion and order of posting.

(14) It is also his further case that currency of punishments imposed against him in various departmental enquiries is not in force at present and as such, it cannot be a ground to deny issuance of order of promotion and order of posting as Inspector of Police to him by the respondents. As regards pending criminal cases are concerned, it is his case that they are pending for long time and the pendency of those cases also cannot be a valid ground to deny promotion to him, and therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is erroneous and unsustainable.

(15) We have meticulously examined the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner with reference to the material available on record. We do not find any merit in the said contentions for the following reasons.

(16) As detailed supra, the contentions of the petitioner in this case are two fold. They are (1) As the name of the petitioner is included in the Rectified State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 18.07.2014 at serial 8 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

No.3363, it amounts to restoring his seniority in the cadre of Inspector of Police with effect from 04.04.2006 and consequently it also tantamounts to giving promotion to him as Inspector of Police with effect from 04.04.2006 and as such he is entitled to be given order of promotion to that effect and order of posting in the cadre of Inspector of Police. (2) The punishments imposed on him in the departmental enquiries are not in currency and they cannot be considered as impediment in giving promotion to him and since the criminal cases registered by ACB and the other IPC cases are pending for long time his promotion cannot be denied on account of pendency of the said criminal cases.

(17) We would first like to deal with the first contention that the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the Rectified State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 18.07.2014 amounts to restoring his seniority with retrospective effect from 04.04.2006 in the cadre of Inspector of Police and it also tantamounts to giving promotion to him as Inspector of Police.

(18) The said contention is too preposterous to countenance the same. No doubt a perusal of the Rectified State-wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police issued in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 18.07.2014 shows that the name of the petitioner herein is 9 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

included at serial No.3363. It appears that some error has crept in including his name in the said seniority list. There is no evidence on record to show that any regular promotion as Inspector of Police was given to the petitioner as per Rules in vogue. The petitioner also did not produce any order in proof of the fact that any promotion was in fact given to him as Inspector of Police by the concerned authority as per Rules. So, when there is no such formal order of promotion issued to him promoting him as Inspector of Police, it is really beyond our comprehension as to how the name of the petitioner is included in the seniority list of Inspectors of Police in the aforesaid two G.Os. In fact the Tribunal also in the impugned order observed in para.3 of the order as follows:

"When the applicant did not get his promotion as Inspector of Police, it is not known as to how his name came to be incorporated in the seniority list of Inspectors of Police covered by G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 Home (Ser-I) Department, dated 18.07.2014 were issued by the Government in respect of seniority in the cadres of Inspectors of Police as well as Deputy Superintendents of Police respectively."

(19) Therefore, the petitioner cannot now take undue advantage of the fact that his name was included in the seniority list of Inspectors of Police and contend by saying that it amounts to giving promotion to him as Inspector of Police with effect from 04.04.2006. The said contention is not tenable and it is purely based on hypothetical view. On account of inclusion of his name in the seniority list of 10 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

Inspectors of Police erroneously, it cannot be inferred or held under any stretch of reasoning that it amounts to giving promotion to him as Inspector of Police. As observed supra, promotion to any higher post is to be given by issuing a formal order to that effect as per Rules in vogue. When no such formal order of promotion is given as per Rules, it cannot be held on a surmise by taking an hypothetical view that on account of inclusion of name of an employee in the seniority list it amounts to giving promotion to him. Inclusion of name of an employee in a seniority list by itself will not confer any right on him as being promoted to the higher post. (20) It appears from the record that promotion is denied to the petitioner on account of various departmental enquiries initiated against him and consequent imposition of punishments on him, which are in currency and the petitioner is facing prosecution in various criminal cases of grave nature involving moral turpitude. The same is evident from the detailed counter-affidavit filed by the respondents before the Tribunal in O.A.No.3244 of 2017, filed by the petitioner. As per the averments of the counter-affidavit which are mentioned in the impugned order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.3244 of 2017, during the panel years 2006-07, 2007- 08 and 2008-09, ACB case was pending against the petitioner. During the panel year 2009-10, along with said ACB case, one departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner. There were also two punishments awarded to him 11 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

by way of censures on 25.03.2009 and 20.05.2009 and one postponement of increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect awarded on 20.05.2009. Two punishments were in currency at that time. His case was not recommended for inclusion in the additional panel for the panel year 2009-10 as ACB case in Crime No.13/ACB/RCT/ EWG/2002 of Eluru Range for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(a) (b) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 IPC and another criminal case in Crime No.9 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 r/w.511 and 101 IPC of Eluru III Town Police Station were pending against him. Therefore, his name was not recommended for promotion during the panel year 2010-11. Similarly, for the panel years 2011-12 and 2012- 13, his name was not included in the panel for promotion as another departmental enquiry in C.No.16/OE-PR/2011 (C.No.317/P/2010) dated 31.03.2010 of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range and the criminal case in Crime No.9 of 2010 were pending. His name was not included in the panel year 2013-14 as two departmental enquiries and two criminal cases were pending at that time and as he was awarded punishment of Censure in one departmental enquiry on 29.06.2013 and as it was in currency and as another criminal case in Crime No.127 of 2012 of Challapalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 323, 506 and 380 of IPC was also pending against him. 12

AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

During the panel years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 as two departmental enquires and two criminal cases have been pending, his name was not recommended and finally in the panel year 2017-18 as two departmental enquiries and one criminal case are pending, his name was not recommended for promotion. These details of departmental enquiries and the criminal cases are set out in para.2 of the impugned order of the Tribunal stating that they are furnished in the counter- affidavit filed by the respondents therein. So, it is now evident that the petitioner was denied promotion on account of the fact that various criminal cases involving moral turpitude and various departmental enquiries are pending against him and on account of punishments imposed on him in departmental enquiries, which are in currency. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was illegally and unjustly denied promotion as Inspector of Police.

(21) As the petitioner made various representations to the higher officials to consider his case for promotion, and as those representations were forwarded by his higher-ups to the concerned authorities to consider his case as per seniority and eligibility in the revised panels as per Rules and procedure in the ongoing process of revision of seniority in G.O.Ms.No.54 dated 22.02.2014 and G.O.Ms.No.115 dated 18.07.2014, as is evident from the memo dated 06.08.2016 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, A.P., it appears that his name was included in the seniority list of Rectified State- 13

AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

wide Integrated Seniority List of Inspectors of Police in which his name was included. The said inclusion by itself cannot be construed as issuing promotion to him as Inspector of Police. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that his seniority was restored as Inspector of Police with effect from 04.04.2006 and that he was given promotion with effect from 04.04.2006 as Inspector of Police and as such, he is entitled to an order of promotion and an order of posting in the cadre of Inspector of Police, on the basis of inclusion of his name in the said seniority list, merits no consideration. The same cannot be countenanced and it is hereby rejected. (22) The other contention of the petitioner that the punishment imposed on him in departmental enquiries is not in currency at present and as the criminal cases are pending for a long time that he cannot be denied promotion on that ground and that he is entitled to promotion is concerned, even if some of the punishments imposed on him are not in currency, as other departmental enquiries are still pending against him and as criminal cases registered by ACB and also by other police under IPC are admittedly pending against him, he cannot be considered for issuing promotion to the next higher post. Conduct of an employee, particularly, in the police department, who is claiming promotion to the higher post to a responsible post, must be free from blemish. No punishment imposed against him in the departmental enquiry should be in currency and no case touching his 14 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

integrity and moral turpitude should be pending during the last six years as per the guidelines issued for promotion in police department as held by the Tribunal. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the case registered by the ACB and also the criminal cases registered under IPC by other police are still pending. It is not his case that they are disposed of and he was honourably acquitted in all those cases. He himself pleaded at para.17 of the affidavit filed in the present Writ Petition that these criminal cases are pending against him for a long time. However, he pleads that on that ground, he cannot be denied promotion. So, it is now evident that the said criminal cases are still pending against him. It cannot be gainsaid that the said criminal case registered against him by the ACB is touching his integrity and moral turpitude. So, when the petitioner is involved in criminal cases, touching moral turpitude, he cannot as a matter of right claim to be considered for promotion. When any such criminal cases are pending against him for long time, still the authorities concerned have to examine the gravity of the said offences and decide whether or not it is desirable in the public interest to give promotion to the said employee during the pendency of the criminal cases. The same is also made clear at para.6 of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999. As the facts of the present case brings to the fore the material facts that the petitioner was involved in many departmental enquiries and he was found guilty in the 15 AVSS, J. & CMR,J.

said enquiries and punishments were imposed against him, and that criminal cases involving moral turpitude are pending against him, we are of the considered view that no direction can be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner straightaway for promotion. The petitioner has to come out clean after being absolved from all the said criminal cases involving moral turpitude. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner in this Writ Petition to direct the respondents to issue order of promotion and order of posting to him in the cadre of Inspector of Police as prayed by him. We also do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal to set aside the same. (23) In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified and sustainable under law. (24) In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall also stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI ________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:19-09-2019.

cs