IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 3206 of 2009 Between: 1 The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2 Director General (V & E) & E.O., Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (V & E) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 State of A.P., Rep by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND K.Srikanth, Deputy Superintendent of Police, (V & E) Office of the Director General ( V & E), 9th Flor, BRKR's Buildings, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of "WRIT OF CERTIORART" calling for the records, relating to and connected with order dated 09- 09-2008 in O.A.No.1091/2008 with VMA No.233/2008 on the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari, challenging the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 1091 of 2008 with VMA No. 233 of 2008 and to quash the same. The respondent – applicant approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act assailing the proceedings in Rc. No.131/G3/2008 dated 4.2.2008 and the consequential order No. 72 dated 5.2.2008 issued by the second petitioner herein, by virtue of he was reverted to the post of Inspector of Police, as illegal and arbitrary, on the ground that the respondent was already awarded punishment. The respondent herein, who was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance & Enforcement), Hyderabad, filed the above O.A. questioning the order of reversion dated 4.2.2008 reverting him to the post of Inspector of Police from Deputy Superintendent of Police. The reasons given in the said order are that a Charge Memo was issued and sent to the Superintendent of Police, Rangareddy for serving on the respondent on 30.10.2007, but it was not served, as a result of which, he got promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil). The Police Establishment Board in its meeting convened on 4.2.2008 in the Chambers of Director General of Police, felt that the respondent is not suitable for promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police for the panel year 2007- 2008 and recommended for his reversion as Inspector of Police and thus the revision order came to be issued. The respondent assailed the reversion order on the ground that he was promoted as Inspector of Police on 10.7.1998 and basing on the recommendations of the Screening Committee, his name was included for the year 2007-2008 for promotion, the Police Establishment Board has issued the proceedings dated 29.12.2007 promoting him as Deputy Superintendent of Police and he joined in the promotion post. Thereafter, a charge Memo was communicated and served on him on 3.1.2008 under Rule 22 of the A.P.C.S. (CC & A) Rules. It is the case of the respondent that though the charge Memo was said to have been issued on 17.9.2007, it was served on him on 3.1.2008, by which date, he had joined the promotion post and in view of the principle that pendency of disciplinary proceedings will not come into operation from the date of its issuance but from the date of its service, his promotion is in accordance with law. Before Tribunal, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in New Bank of India Vs. N.P. Sehgal and Another ( 1991(2) SCC 220) wherein it is held: “Disciplinary Proceedings contemplated or under consideration” not a good ground for not considering the concerned employee for promotion if he is in the zone of consideration – Nor it is a good ground for denying promotion if considered otherwise fit for promotion – However, promotion if granted would not amount to condonation of earlier acts of misconduct of the employee” Learned counsel further placed reliance on GO Ms. No. 66 GA (Ser.C) Department dated 30.1.1991, paragraph 5 of which reads: Government, therefore, hereby direct that 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 GO, 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 the criminal court, as the case may be. The Tribunal has considered elaborately and found that the respondent was rightly recommended by the Screening Committee in December, 2007 and there was no need to review the promotion inasmuch as he was served with the Memo on 3.1.2008 by which date he was already promoted and left it open to the petitioners herein to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings and impose punishment in the promoted post, in the event the charge are proved. We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Services I and the learned counsel for the respondent. It has to be noticed that the punishment was imposed on the respondent on 30.1.2008 with the postponement of increments for three years and the Tribunal has set aside the impugned order reverting the respondent to the post of Inspector of Police from the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Learned Government Pleader was directed to produce the original records. We have perused the records. The reason assigned in reverting the respondent is that he is an undeserving Inspector, who got promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is needless to mention that no charge sheet was served on the respondent as on the date of effecting his promotion inasmuch as charge Memo was served only on 3.1.2008. The disciplinary proceedings commence only after issuance of charge sheet. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there is no jurisdictional error. The Tribunal has rightly appreciated the fact that the respondent was promoted even prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings inasmuch as there was no charge memo served on the respondent and consequently set aside the order of reversion inasmuch as punishment was already imposed on the respondent with regard to the alleged misconduct and the reversion order does not relate to the same. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity and jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost. ______________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed _________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar March 2, 2009 MAS