Sympathy For Govt Employee Facing Grave Corruption Allegations Will Impair Morality In Department: AP High Court Rejects Promotion Plea
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee facing grave allegations of corruption and a pending criminal prosecution cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, and that sympathy for such an employee would seriously impair the morality in the department. In doing so, the Court refused to direct consideration of a Deputy Director of Mines and Geology for promotion to...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a government employee facing grave allegations of corruption and a pending criminal prosecution cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, and that sympathy for such an employee would seriously impair the morality in the department.
In doing so, the Court refused to direct consideration of a Deputy Director of Mines and Geology for promotion to the post of Joint Director, who had challenged the authorities' decision not to include him in the promotion panel despite being at Sl.No.2 in the seniority list.
Emphasising that an employee facing serious allegations cannot be treated on par with employees having clean and unblemished service records, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed:
“One-dimensional sympathy for the employee facing grave allegations of corruption, embezzlement of public money etc., would seriously impair the morality in the department. An employee facing serious allegations of bribery cannot be placed on par with the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. In the opinion of this Court, the promotion of individuals facing grave charges will have a demoralising effect on honest persons working in the department and normalise wrongful acts.
The directions to consider individuals facing serious allegations for promotion would only open another avenue to pursue promotion under the cover "consider" orders and such an avenue should be nipped in the bud. The usual plea of delay in conclusion is of no avail in cases of this nature as there would be inevitable delay in conclusion of criminal cases on account of various dynamics and strategies employed at the trial and there is no magic wand in the hands of anybody to ensure expeditious conclusion.”
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a Deputy Director of Mines and Geology seeking consideration for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Mines and Geology.
The petitioner had joined the Mines and Geology Department as a Technical Assistant in 1992 and was subsequently promoted as Royalty Inspector, Assistant Geologist, Assistant Director and Deputy Director. The post of Joint Director was the next promotional post.
The matter arose from allegations of large-scale illegal limestone excavation and transportation from Konanki, Nadikudi and Kesanupalli. The State Government later entrusted the case to the CBI, which alleged that the petitioner, while serving as Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, misused his official position by failing to take action against the illegal quarrying despite having knowledge of the same, thereby facilitating the illegal excavation and transportation of limestone.
The alleged excavation involved 21,15,825.14 MT of limestone, causing a stated loss of Rs. 124,46,41,278 to the exchequer. The petitioner was charged under the IPC, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act. The criminal proceedings are pending.
Separately, in February 2022, the State Government sanctioned a common enquiry against the petitioner and another officer, and charge memos were issued. Although the petitioner submitted his defence denying the allegations, no further progress was made in the departmental proceedings.
The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court by way of a writ petition seeking consideration of his promotion. The Court had directed the authorities to consider his case in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 257 dated 10.06.1999, which governs promotion of employees facing disciplinary enquiries.
Pursuant to the direction, the Departmental Promotion Committee considered his case. Although the petitioner was at Sl. No.2 in the seniority list, the Committee found him not fit for inclusion in the promotion panel in view of the criminal proceedings pending against him.
This led to the present writ petition, in which the petitioner challenged the non-consideration of his candidature and contended that the prolonged pendency of the departmental proceedings was affecting his career progression.
The State contended that G.O.Ms.No.257 did not apply, as the petitioner's candidature had not been referred to two consecutive Departmental Promotion Committees. It submitted that the earlier High Court order was “scrupulously followed” and that pending criminal proceedings did not confer a right to promotion. It also argued that probation and seniority did not automatically entitle the petitioner to promotion.
The issue for consideration was whether an employee facing grave charges in a departmental or criminal case is entitled to be considered for promotion.
Examining G.O.Ms.No.257, the Court noted that Paragraph 5(B) broadly classifies employees facing disciplinary or criminal proceedings into those with clean records, those who would not have been promoted irrespective of the pending proceedings, and those who would have been promoted but for the enquiry or trial.
Paragraph 6 further restricts ad hoc promotion where the charges involve moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement or grave dereliction of duty, while requiring the authorities to pursue such proceedings vigorously.
A combined reading of these provisions, the Court held, shows that individuals facing criminal cases involving grave allegations of corruption are not entitled even to be considered for promotion in public interest.
The Court observed that promotion is “an incentive conferred on the individual for his service in keeping the interest of the department as the foremost” and is a “mutual duty and obligation.”
The Court rejected the plea that delay in concluding the proceedings required the petitioner's promotion to be considered. It observed that criminal cases inevitably take time and that “there is no magic wand” to ensure their expeditious conclusion.
The Court also clarified that it could not examine the petitioner's plea of innocence in the present writ petition, as those aspects were required to be urged in the pending criminal case.
Finding no merit in the writ petition, the Court dismissed it. No order as to costs was made.
Case Title: G. Papa Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.No. 8394 of 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. Kavitha Gottipati
Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Services-I and II