STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. VENKATA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal would call in question the legality and validity of the order dtd. 2/3/2022 passed by learned single Judge allowing W.P.No.165 of 2022 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner claiming promotion as Assistant Sub-Inspector with retrospective effect from the date of promotion of his junior.

(2.) It is not in dispute that while the writ petitioner was working as Head Constable with effect from 5/9/2012, an FIR in Crime No.154 of 2019 was registered against him on 1/5/2019 for the offence under Ss. 338 and 337 IPC, which was altered to Ss. 304-A and 337 IPC r/w Ss. 132 and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act for rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Subsequently, C.C.No.567 of 2019 arising out of the said crime number ended in acquittal in the Court of the XV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam vide order dtd. 6/11/2020. However, in the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition (appellant No.2 in this appeal) issued a charge memo in C.No.08/PR/2019 to the petitioner on the same set of allegations. On 3/10/2019, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge memo. During pendency of the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent issued a final interspersed seniority list of Men and Women Head Constables (HC)/Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASI) of Visakhapatnam city as on 1/1/2020 showing the petitioner at serial No.176 and one junior Ms. Zia Ruxana at senior No.186. In the subsequent interspersed seniority list of HCs/ASIs of Visakhapatnam city unit, in which seniority position was shown as on 1/1/2022, the petitioner was shown at serial No.99 and his junior Ms. Zia Ruxana was shown at serial No.105 and she was promoted on 22/9/2020 as ASI, whereas the petitioner has not been considered for promotion though he is placed at serial No.99 i.e., above Ms. Zia Ruxana, who was at serial No.105.

(3.) Referring to Rule 5(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1996, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner cannot be denied promotion merely on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings.