P. YADAIAH VS THE STATE OF TELANGANA W.P.NO. 3893 of 2021 FACTS OF THE CASE The petitioner has lodged a Writ Petition to secure a Writ of Mandamus, seeking elevation to the position of Joint Director (SCD). The petitioner, who presently holds the position of Deputy Director, contends that they meet all the eligibility criteria for the promotion. However, their promotion has been withheld by the respondents in light of an ongoing criminal case against them, identified as F.I.R. No. 04-ACB-KNR/2018, dated 14/02/2018. The petitioner firmly asserts that the pending FIR should not be a barrier to their professional advancement, they believe that the respondents’ decision to overlook their promotion is unjust. ISSUES The main issues in this case are: Whether the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Joint Director (SCD) without reference to the pending criminal case? Whether the respondents’ action of not considering the petitioner’s promotion based on the pending F.I.R. is arbitrary, unjust, illegal. Whether the respondents’ action violates the principles laid down in G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991, G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999 and the decisions reported in (2013) 4 SCC 161 and 2017 (ALT) 225? Whether the non-consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion violates their rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? ARGUMENTS The petitioner’s counsel, Sri V. Ravichandran, argued that the State Government’s has issued two policy decisions in G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30-01-1991, and G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, support the petitioner’s claim for promotion. G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991, states that the promotion/appointment to the next higher post shall be deferred for employees facing disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges only when a charge of misconduct has been framed or a charge sheet has been filed against them. Similarly, G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, directs the consideration of cases of employees with pending disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the guidelines framed under the said order. The petitioner contends that their case for promotion should be evaluated based on these policy decisions, and the respondents’ failure to do so is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the principles enunciated in the decisions reported in (2013) 4 SCC 161 and 2017 (ALT) 225. They further argue that the respondents’ action violates the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner is facing disciplinary proceedings without any charges framed against them, their case should be considered for promotion. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing for the respondents argues that the petitioner’s case will be considered in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, and assures that appropriate orders will be passed. JUDGMENT After hearing the arguments from both sides, the Court finds that the petitioner’s case for promotion as Joint Director needs to be considered. The Court directed the respondents to evaluate the petitioner’s case strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, and G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991. The Court further ordered the respondents to pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the receipt of the court’s order. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition without imposing any costs on either party. Additionally, any pending miscellaneous petitions were to stand closed CONCLUSION The Court’s decision is based on a careful consideration of the arguments presented by both the petitioner’s counsel and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare. The Court recognizes the relevance of the policy decisions, G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991, and G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 10.06.1999, which deal with the promotion and consideration of cases of employees facing disciplinary proceedings or criminal charges. By failing to consider the petitioner’s case for promotion in light of these policy decisions, the respondents’ actions were found to be arbitrary and in violation of the petitioner’s rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. REFERENCES This article is Written by B S BADRINATH, of university law college, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments