Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N. Shankar Prasad, vs State Of A.P, on 13 October, 2020
Author: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M. Satyanarayana Murthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
+ WRIT PETITION No.8991 OF 2020
% Dated 13.10.2020
#
N. Shankar Prasad
s/o N. Suryanarayana Murthy
occ: RSI, DAR, Kakinada
Thondangi Mandal, Kakinada
East Godavari District ..... Petitioner
Vs.
$
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department
Secretariat, Velagapudi and 3 others ......Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 13.10.2020
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to see
the fair copy of the Judgment?
MSM,J
WP No.8991 of 2020
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
+ WRIT PETITION No.8991 OF 2020
% Dated 13.10.2020
#
N. Shankar Prasad
s/o N. Suryanarayana Murthy
occ: RSI, DAR, Kakinada
Thondangi Mandal, Kakinada
East Godavari District ..... Petitioner
Vs.
$
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department
Secretariat, Velagapudi and 3 others ......Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora
^ Counsel for the respondent :
Learned Government Pleader for Home
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 199
2. (1992) 1 SCC 335
3. (1992) 1 SCC 558
4. (2002) I.L.R 1-4106 (O.S.C.J)
5. 1990 Crl.L.J 1315
MSM,J
WP No.8991 of 2020
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO. 8991 OF 2020
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
"..........declaring the action of Respondents more particularly 2nd respondent in rejecting the candidature of petitioner for promotion to the higher rank and issuing impugned proceedings in memo Rc.No.786/F2/2018 dated 05.05.2020 as illegal, high-handed unconstitutional, deliberate, unwarranted, unsustainable, arbitrary against law, as well as principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the proceedings memo R.C No 786/F2/2018 dated 05.05.2020 and direct the Respondents to promote the petitioner for further higher rank with all consequential benefits"
The petitioner was appointed as Reserved Sub-Inspector (Armed) on 15.07.2008 and posted as District Armed Reserve Police at Kakinada. While the petitioner was working in Traffic-I Police Station, Kakinada, he was suspended under Rule 8(1) of The Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (for short 'C.C.A Rules) vide proceedings R.O.546/1 on the ground that Crime No.244 of 2016 was registered against this petitioner under Sections 120-B, 201, 203, 213, 217, 218 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C') and Section of 60-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 r/w 34 of I.P.C on the file of Indrapalem Police Station.
It is the contention of the petitioner that, he was falsely implicated in the above crime. The petitioner also did not deny registration of the crime, but approached the High Court to quash charge sheet in Crl.P.No.735 of 2020. This Court vide order in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in Crl.P.No.735 of 2020 dated 10.02.2020 MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 4 granting stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.975 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District, during pendency of the criminal petition.
It is contended by the petitioner that, the provisional seniority list for promotion to the post of Reserve Inspectors was released on 01.01.2019 and the petitioner was shown at Serial No.1 in the order of seniority. However, the petitioner was denied promotion for the post of Reserve Inspector, on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (henceforth 'the Tribunal') in O.A.No.2073 of 2018 and vide order dated 10.10.2018, O.A.No.2073 of 2018 was allowed, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Reserve Inspector as per seniority, without reference to the pendency of Crime No.244 of 2016, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal on 10.10.2018, the respondents/State preferred W.P.No.3315 of 2019, wherein the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition on 23.01.2020, confirming the order of the Tribunal and observed as follows:
"Coming to the orders passed by the Tribunal, it is to be noted that the Tribunal had taken into consideration the orders of the State Government issued vide G.O.Ms.No.66 GAD (Services.C) Department, dated 30.01.1991, and directed the authorities to consider the case of the applicant for promotion. It is not the case of the petitioners herein MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 5 that, as on the date of consideration of the case of the applicant, a charge sheet was filed. Therefore, this Court has absolutely no scintilla of hesitation to hold that the authorities are not justified in declining to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Reserve Inspector.
It is also a settled and well established principle of law that, in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity, a writ in the nature of certiorari cannot be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This court does not find any such contingency in the case on hand.
For the aforesaid reasons, Writ Petition is dismissed, confirming the order, dated 10.10.2018, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2073 of 2018, and interim order, granted by this Court in this Writ Petition, stands vacated and the petitioners are granted eight weeks' time to implement the orders of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs."
Thus, the Division Bench of this Court categorically directed the respondents to implement the orders of the Tribunal within eight weeks. Instead of following the directions of the Court, the respondents/authorities denied promotion to this petitioner, as a Reserve Inspector and issued proceedings R.C.No.641/E2/2019- MZ-1 dated 12.05.2020 without considering his candidature for promotion as Reserve Inspector, while promoting his juniors to the post of Reserve Inspectors.
The petitioner mainly contended that, the respondents in utter violations of the directions issued by the Tribunal and this Court, issued such proceedings. On the ground of mere pendency of criminal case or disciplinary proceedings, promotion cannot be denied. In fact, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against this petitioner were stayed by this Court in W.P.No.8782 of 2019 dated 05.05.2020, but, still the respondents denied promotion to this petitioner arbitrarily.
MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 6 The petitioner also further contended that Standing Order 74.2 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual specifies the requirement of fitness for promotion and it is extracted hereunder:
"He should not be facing any departmental enquiry for grave charges or involved in any investigation/enquiry or trial into a criminal case against him or a regular enquiry or investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau or Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings."
C.C.No.975 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada was stayed by this Court in Crl.P.No.975 of 2020 dated 10.02.2020 and departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner was ordered to be stayed for a period of one year by this Court in W.P.No.8782 of 2019 dated 01.10.2019 and those proceedings are deemed to be in-force, thereby, the impugned order in Rc.No.786/F2/2018 dated 05.05.2020 issued by the respondents is illegal and arbitrary.
Respondent No.3/The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, West Godavari, filed counter affidavit admitting everything including denial of promotion vide Rc.No.786/F2/2018 dated 05.05.2020, taking advantage of Standing Order 74.2 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, as criminal prosecution against this petitioner in C.C.No.975 of 2019 is pending and also disciplinary proceedings against this petitioner were also initiated. Hence, on account of pendency of criminal prosecution in C.C.No.975 of 2019 and pendency of departmental proceedings initiated against this petitioner, promotion was denied, while contending that when the petitioner was placed under suspension, MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 7 Rule 8(1) of C.C.A Rules and Standing Order 74.2 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual are applicable to the case of the petitioner. More particularly, to determine the fitness of this petitioner, Standing Order 74.2 in the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual is applicable, besides the circulars and government orders issued by the State Government from time to time and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
During hearing, Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the affidavit, while drawing attention of this Court to certain guidelines for consideration of employees for promotion during pendency of departmental proceedings, issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999 and contended that, mere pendency of the criminal case or departmental proceedings against an employee is not a ground to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and requested to issue a direction strictly following the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999.
Whereas, the learned Special Government Pleader for Services, vehemently contended that the Rules are general in nature, but when the petitioner is not fit for promotion in terms of Standing Order 74.2 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, the case of this petitioner cannot be considered for promotion as a Reserve Inspector, though he is at Serial No.1 in the gradation list, MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 8 for the simple reason that, the special rules will prevail over the general rules and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
The facts are not in dispute. The only dispute is, the ground on which promotion was denied to this petitioner. Undisputedly, C.C.No.975 of 2019 is pending on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 201, 203, 213, 217, 218 of I.P.C and Section of 60-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The proceedings in C.C.No.975 of 2019 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kakinada were stayed by this Court vide order in Crl.P.No.735 of 2020 dated 10.02.2020. Though stay was granted till the proceedings are totally quashed, criminal case against this petitioner is deemed to be pending. Similarly, departmental proceedings which were initiated against this petitioner got stayed by this Court in W.P.No.8782 of 2019 dated 01.10.2019, but, still, it is deemed to be pending against this petitioner. Pendency of criminal case or pendency of departmental proceedings is not a ground to deny promotion to this petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999, prescribing certain guidelines for consideration of employees during pendency of departmental proceedings and criminal cases and they are as follows:
1. The details of employees in the zone of consideration of promotion falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committees or Screening Committees:-
(i) Officers under suspension;
(ii) Officers in respect of whom a charge sheet has been issued
and the disciplinary proceedings are
pending;
(iii) Officers in respect of whom prosecution for a criminal
charge is pending.
MSM,J
WP No.8991 of 2020
9
2. Officers who are facing enquiry, trial or investigation can be categorised into the following groups based on the nature of the allegations of charges pending against them or about to be instituted namely:-
(i) an officer with a clean record, the nature of charges or allegations against whom relate to minor
(ii) lapses having no bearing on his integrity or efficiency, which even if held proved, would not stand in the way of his being promoted;
(iii) an officer whose record is such that he would not be promoted, irrespective of the allegations or charges under enquiry, trial or investigation; and
(iv) an officer whose record is such that he would have been promoted had he not been facing enquiry, trial or investigation, in respect of charges which, if held proved, would be sufficient to supersede him.
3. The suitability of the officers for inclusion in the panel should be considered on an overall assessment based on the record which should include namely:
(i) Adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential reports, the penalties awarded and the bad reputation of the officer as vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned; the above cases should be considered as falling under category (ii) of item (B) above.
(ii) The officers who do not have any adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report, and who have no penalties awarded against them in the entire duration of the post and not merely in the past five years and whose reputation is vouchsafed by the Head of the Department and Secretary to Government of the Department concerned should be considered as falling under category (iii) of item (B) above. The officers categorised as under item (iii) of G.O.Ms.No.424, GA (Ser.C) Dept., dated 25-05-76 as mentioned above only should be considered for adhoc promotion after completion of two years from the date of the Departmental Promotion committee or Screening committee Meeting in which their cases were considered for the first time.
On strict interpretation of G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999, pendency of criminal case or departmental proceeding is not a ground to deny consideration of this petitioner for promotion.
MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 10 In C.O. Arumugam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu1, the Apex Court held as follows:
"As to the merits of the matter, it is necessary to state that every civil servant has a right to have his case considered for promotion according to his turn and it is a guarantee flowing from Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The consideration of promotion could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To avoid arbitrariness, it would be better to follow certain uniform principle. The promotion of persons against whom charge has been framed in the disciplinary proceedings or charge-sheet has been filed in criminal case may be deferred till the proceedings are concluded. They must, however, be considered for promotion if they are exonerated or acquitted from the charges. If found suitable, they shall then be given the promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which their juniors were promoted."
In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgment referred supra and G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999, the petitioner is governed by C.C.A Rules and eligible for being considered to be promoted as a Reserve Inspector, subject to satisfying his fitness for promotion, as per the Rules governing the service conditions of the employees of the police department.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Standing Order 74 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. Clause (2) of Standing Order No.74 is relevant for deciding the real controversy between the parties. According to Standing Order 74.2 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, he should not be facing any departmental enquiry for grave charges or involved in any investigation/enquiry or trial into a criminal case against him or a 1 1991 Supp (2) SCC 199 MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 11 regular enquiry or investigation by the Anti-Corruption Bureau or Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings.
To consider the candidature of this petitioner for promotion as Reserve Inspector from the cadre of Sub-Inspector, no criminal trial should be pending and no regular enquiry or investigation should be pending by the Anti-Corruption Bureau or Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the petitioner should not be involved in any departmental enquiry for grave charges. Here, the allegation made against this petitioner is serious in nature, since the petitioner being a member of Armed Reserved Police, who is expected to maintain high degree of discipline since his duty is to prevent commission of offences and investigate into the offences, if any, after commission. Instead of preventing commission of such offences, the petitioner himself being a member of disciplined force, involved in such grave offence for sharing booty i.e. money exchanged after demonetisation contrary to the order promulgated by the Government.
A serious allegation made against this petitioner is that, while the petitioner was on duty along with the other police constables, working as Reserve Sub-Inspector in Kakinada, East Godavari District, discharging duty in Traffic-I PS, Kakinada, he was suspended under Rule 8(1) of APCS (Conduct) Rules, 1991 vide proceedings R.O.No.546/2016 for the reason that, on 04.12.2016, he along with PC 2844 Sri Revu Prasad Babu, PC 977 Sri Chilla Parasuram Reddy and PC 3797 Sri Kolli Hanuman Gangadhar of Traffic-I PS, Kakinada conducted raid in mufti at MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 12 Kovvada railway gate, Kovvada Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal without following legal procedures and unexplained illegal money transaction to a tune of Rs.84-50 lakhs for exchanging new currency notes for old currency notes for gain on commission within the jurisdiction of Indrapalem Police Station, the petitioner conspired with the other subordinates and the accused by name Sri Karri Bhami Reddy, Sri Karri Ammi Reddy, Sri Medapati Sambi Reddy and Sri Murthineedi Rama Krishna for gain i.e commission. While on the way to police station, after passing little distance, the four offenders, the petitioner and his assistants conspired and colluded with one another for their gain and hatched a plan for giving the false information to the authorities to save some of the petitioners i.e. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 from the offence, for carrying illegal money transaction money by hiding out the cash. In pursuance of their plan, they had come to an agreement to hand over cash Rs.40,00,000/- in the police station, Rs.40,00,000/- to Accused Nos. 1 to 3, Rs.5,00,000/- was taken by the petitioner and his three assistants to save Accused Nos. 1 to 3 from the offence. On that, they separated the cash in two bags, each bag containing Rs.40 lakhs. Later, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 along with PC 2844 Revu Prasad Babu travelled in one car. In pursuance of their plan, Accused Nos. 2 and 3 got down from the car, in transit by taking one cash bag containing Rs.40 lakhs. At that time, PC 2844 Revu Prasad Babu was driving the car and found Rs.22 lakhs missed from another bag which is to be handed over in the police station. The petitioner and his three assistants handed over Accused No.4, one car, cash of Rs.18 lakhs, two mobiles and one MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 13 currency counting machine in Indrapalem Police Station by leaving Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and cash of Rs.61.50 lakhs. The petitioner lodged report on 04/05.12.2016 at 12.30 midnight to that effect, handing over Rs.18 lakhs only by suppressing the facts. Based on the said report, the Station House Officer, registered Crime No.244 of 2016 under Sections 41 and 102 Cr.P.C on the file of Indrapalem Police Station and took up investigation.
During the course of investigation, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was seized from Accused No.7, which was taken by the petitioner and his three assistants conspiring with Accused Nos. 1 to 3 to screen them and also for leaving the unexplained illegal cash to a tune of Rs.61.50 lakhs. During investigation, the above facts came into light and crime was registered in which the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.5. Thereupon, based on the information received by the authorities concerned, crime was registered against this petitioner and three other persons for various offences, investigated into it and filed charge sheet before the V Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kakinada, which is registered as C.C.No.975 of 2019. Independent departmental proceedings are also initiated against this petitioner for misconduct within the definition of Rule 3 of C.C.A Rules. Thus, the act done by this petitioner is a grave offence committed being a member of disciplined police force.
When the petitioner has allegedly committed grave offences, punishable under Sections 120-B, 201, 203, 213, 217, 218 of I.P.C and Section of 60-A of Income Tax Act, 1961 r/w 34 of I.P.C, which MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 14 is the subject matter of C.C.No.975 of 2019 pending on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada, East Godavari District and disciplinary proceedings against him for the misconduct though stayed, they are deemed to be pending against him. When the petitioner is involved in grave offences and guilty of grave misconduct prima facie, the petitioner is disentitled to claim promotion as a matter of course in view of Standing Order 74.2 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual.
The C.C.A Rules and Circulars issued by the government from time to time are general in nature and at best, G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999 relaxes the interdict, permitted to consider for promotion of an employee inspite of pendency of criminal case or disciplinary proceedings initiated by the department.
Consideration of an employee for promotion is always subject to his fitness for promotion, as per the rules governing the service conditions of an employee. In the present facts, the petitioner is governed by Andhra Pradesh Police Manual and in terms of Clause (2) of Standing Order 74 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, when a criminal case is pending or disciplinary proceedings are pending for grave charges, against an employee, he is not fit to be considered for promotion. Fitness for promotion or consideration for promotion on account of pendency of departmental proceedings or criminal case is two different incidents. The question of consideration for promotion though disciplinary proceedings and calendar cases are pending against MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 15 the petitioner is subject to his fitness under the relevant services rules, governing the service of an employee. But, in the present case, the service rules governing the services of this petitioner is as per Standing Order 74.2 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, the petitioner is not fit to be considered for promotion. Therefore, special rules will prevail over the general rules and consequently, non-consideration of this petitioner on account of pendency of grave crime and disciplinary proceedings for grave misconduct is justifiable cause and it is strictly in accordance with Standing Order 74.2 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual.
It is a well settled law that, the special law prevails over the general law vide G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edition). This principle is expressed in the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant.
In R.S.Raghunath versus State of Karnataka and another2, the Supreme Court held that the special law prevails over general law with one exception and that is a later general law prevails over earlier special law, if it clearly indicates the intention to supersede the special law.
In St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi3 the Apex Court held as follows:
"140. ...The golden rule of interpretation is that words should be read in the ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning and the principle of harmonious construction merely applies the rule that where there is a general provision of law dealing with a subject, and 2 (1992) 1 SCC 335 3 (1992) 1 SCC 558 MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 16 a special provision dealing with the same subject, the special prevails over the general. If it is not constructed in that way the result would be that the special provision would be wholly defeated.
The Supreme Court of Canada in, Lalonde v Sun Life4, Justice Gonthier in his own words held that, "This is an appropriate case in which to apply the maxim generalia specialibus non derogant and give precedence to the special Act. The principle is, therefore, that where there are provisions in a special Act and in a general Act on the same subject which are inconsistent, if the special Act gives a complete rule on the subject, the expression of the rule acts as an exception to the subject-matter of the rule from the general Act."
Learned counsel for the petitioner though raised several contentions, mainly based his contention on G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999. But, G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999 is a general direction issued by the Government to all employees for being considered for promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2073 of 2018, wherein the Tribunal issued directions to consider the case of the applicant for the post of Reserve Inspector by order dated 10.10.2018. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, W.P.No.3315 of 2019 is filed by the State against the petitioner. In the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court observed that, while referring to the judgments 4 [2002] I.L.R. 1-4106 (O.S.C.J.) MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 17 of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh5 and C.O. Arumugam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu (referred supra), the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.257 GAD Services Department, dated 10.06.1999, and G.O.Ms.No.66 GAD (Services.C) Department, dated 30.01.1991, and paragraph No.5 of the said Government Order, dated 30.01.1991, which is germane and relevant for the purpose of the present case, reads as under:
"Government, however, hereby direct the promotion/appointment by transfer to a higher post in respect of officers who are facing disciplinary proceedings or a criminal case or whose conduct is under investigation and whose case falls under the ground referred to in para.2 (iii) of the G.O. first read above, shall be deferred, only when charges of misconduct are framed by the competent authority and served on the concerned delinquent officer, or a charge sheet has been filed against him in criminal Court, as the case may be"
The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2073 of 2018 dated 10.10.2018 and the respondent/State was granted eight weeks time to implement the orders of the Tribunal.
Therefore, taking advantage of the order passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3315 of 2019, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, failure to implement the order of the Tribunal is illegal and requested to issue a direction as claimed by this Court. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court did not consider the case of this petitioner with reference to Standing Order 74.2 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. But, the judgment is based on the general orders passed by the Court under C.C.A Rules, more particularly, with 5 1990 Crl.L.J 1315 MSM,J WP No.8991 of 2020 18 reference to G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999. The case of the petitioner can be considered in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.3315 of 2019, if he is found fit to be promoted as per the service rules governing the services of this petitioner. The Rules governing the services are different from general C.C.A Rules. C.C.A Rules can be applied only when the petitioner is found fit for promotion and when he is not fit to be considered for promotion, G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (SER.C) Department dated 10.06.1999 or G.O.Ms.No.66 GAD (Services.C) Department, dated 30.01.1991 and the judgments referred above will have no application.
Hence, I am of the considered view that special rules will prevail over the general rules and in view of the special rules i.e Standing Order 74.2, the petitioner is unfit to be considered for promotion, in view of the pendency of criminal case and disciplinary proceedings, though stay was granted by this Court in Crl.P.No.735 of 2020 and W.P.No.3315 of 2019. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to issue any direction to set-aside the impugned proceedings R.C.No 786/F2/2018 dated 05.05.2020.
Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated:13.10.2020 Note; LR copy to be marked SP