SD. ABDUL KARIMULLAH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-

(2.) Heard Smt Pulipati Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.

(3.) Petitioner is working as Office Superintendent. He was eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer. By proceedings dtd. 31/7/2021, panel of Office Superintendents fit for promotion as Assistant Administrative Officers for the panel year 2020-2021 came to be issued, pursuant to which the persons mentioned therein were effected promotions. It is stated that though petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion, at that point of time, on account of pendency of criminal case vide C.C.No.157 of 2017 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, his case was not considered and rather, all his junior were promoted. Subsequently, vide judgment dtd. 21/7/2022, the criminal case against the petitioner ended in acquittal. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted representations dtd. 25/7/2022 and 2/8/2022 requesting the respondents to consider his case for promotion retrospectively, with reference to the panel year 2021-2022. The said request ultimately did not fructify into any conclusion. Later, though respondents have called for an exercise to undertake promotions for the panel years 2022-2023 and 2023- 2024, no promotions came to be effected. In the interregnum, based on certain complaints given by some third parties alleging that petitioner had borrowed some amounts and could not repay the same, inquiry came to be conducted against him. Pursuant to the inquiry, he was placed under suspension on 28/11/2023 and subsequently, came to be reinstated on 19/4/2024. A charge memo was issued on 8/2/2024, to which he submitted statement of defence, and the inquiry is stated to be pending. As the promotional post being non-selection post, mere pendency of departmental inquiry could not be an impediment for considering the case of petitioner for promotion, in view of Rule 5(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996. As the case of petitioner is not being considered for promotion, and that his juniors were already promoted, he preferred present writ petition.