B MADUSUDAN REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in the A.P. State Housing Corporation (for short 'the Corporation'), the 2nd respondent herein. The Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), of the State of Andhra Pradesh caused verification of the assets of the petitioner. Alleging that the assets held by him are disproportionate to his known sources of income, it caused the arrest of the petitioner. Taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent placed the petitioner under suspension, on 22-05-2008. Obviously, because there was no progress in the case registered by the ACB, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No. 98, dated 08-04-2010, directing revocation of the suspension of the petitioner and consequential orders dated 28-04-2010 were issued by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) The promotions to the posts of Deputy Executive Engineers were taking place in the Corporation. The case of the petitioner was not being considered on the ground that proceedings initiated by the ACB are pending. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No. 28625 of 2010, seeking direction to the respondents to consider his case. The writ petition was disposed of, on 24-11-2010, directing that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines issued in G.O. Ms. No. 257, dated 10-06-1999. In compliance with the said direction, the 2nd respondent considered the case of the petitioner and issued proceedings dated 30-03-2011, declining to place his case before the Departmental Promotion Committee on the ground that a case involving in moral turpitude is pending. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner was found to be possessing assets worth Rs. 58,49,043/-, and on finding that the same are disproportionate to his known sources of income, proceedings were initiated. He submits that the case of the petitioner was considered strictly in accordance with the guidelines, in G.O. Ms. No. 257, dated 10-06-1999, as directed by this Court, and the impugned order is passed.