Promotion Cannot Be Denied If Chargesheet Is Not Filed: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates

After relying on Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and others vs. K.V.Janaki Raman and others [(1991) 4 SCC 109], a Single Judge Bench of Justice Challa Gunaranjan held,

“Crime No.13/RCT-ACB-OGL/2023, registered against petitioner by Anti-Corruption Bureau is still at the stage of investigation and no charge sheet has been filed. The Apex Court in the above judgment has categorically held that unless charge sheet is filed it cannot be said that criminal proceedings are pending against an employee, therefore, denying the benefit of promotion to such person on mere pendency of the investigation would be contrary to law. Even G.O.Ms.No.66, dated 30.01.1991, issued by the Government, is also to the same effect.”

Facts

In the present writ petition, the petitioner was a Junior Assistant who was accused of offences punishable under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was enlarged on bail, and was also reinstated into service on 17.03.2025 after being suspended on 25.12.2023. Investigation of the said crime was pending, and neither was the chargesheet filed nor had the respondents initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. However, despite being eligible for appointment by transfer as Sub-Inspector in Zone-III, he was not considered for the same on account of the pending case. Persons who were below in the seniority list than the petitioner had been considered for appointment by transfer. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

It was prayed in the petition that a Writ of Mandamus be issued declaring the action of the respondents in denying the petitioner appointment by transfer as Sub Inspector, Prohibition & Excise—on the ground of the pending case against him— while granting such appointment to a junior, as illegal and violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 14, 16, 21, and to subsequently direct the respondents to grant the petitioner such appointment with restored seniority.

It was the case of the petitioner that he could not be denied the promotion as the charge-sheet was not yet filed. He also referred to G.O.Ms.No.66, General Administration (Ser.C) Department, dated 30.01.1991, which was in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in Janaki Raman.

On the contrary, the respondents contended that the standing order No.74(2) of AP Police Manual Volume-I, mandated that in case a person was undergoing any departmental inquiry for grave charges or was involved in any investigation/inquiry or trial into a criminal case or investigation by Anti-Corruption Bureau or Tribunal, such person shall not be entitled to be considered for promotion.

Court's Findings:

The Court referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Janaki Raman where it was held that disciplinary proceedings or criminal proceedings are considered to have commenced only when the charge sheet is filed and authorities cannot withhold promotions or benefits on the pretext of pending allegations or ongoing preliminary inquiries.

Taking this into consideration, the Court held,

“In view of the Apex Court judgment, Clause-5 of the said G.O has to be construed in the context of the para-17 of the aforesaid judgment. As investigation has not resulted in filing of the charge sheet, petitioner has every right to be considered for promotion and on that ground respondents cannot deny him the said benefit.”

Thus, the writ petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Department, as per his seniority.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 10731/2025

Case Title: SYED FARUQ AHMED v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Date: 28.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order