Censure Validly Bars Promotion For One Year, But Only If The Penalty Is Sustainable: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a government servant awarded the minor penalty of censure can be denied promotion for one year under G.O.Ms.No.53, as the Government Order has the force of law and validly supplements the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 140]

However, the Court clarified that where the punishment itself is found unsustainable, the employee would be entitled to consideration for promotion in accordance with seniority.

In doing so, the Court set aside a minor censure imposed on a Deputy Tahsildar for allegedly speaking discourteously to a 77-year-old RTI applicant and directed the authorities to consider her case for promotion to the post of Tahsildar in accordance with the rules.

Emphasising the need for consequences to flow from disciplinary penalties, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed:

“Such an approach would make the penalty of 'censure' a dead provision in the rules. The discipline among the employees is instilled in fear of consequence of any act of misconduct and it would be unfair to treat an employee censured, on par with an employee with clean record for the purpose of promotion. If a punishment has no consequence, it erodes deterrence and leads to the normalization of wrongdoing.”

At the same time, the Court held:

“The statement of the Petitioner does not disclose any discourteous reply and merely because the complainant had perceived the statement of the Petitioner to be disrespectful, the same per se cannot be a ground. In the normal local dialect, the Petitioner had addressed the individual from a normal prudent person's point of view and therefore, the penalty of censure is unwarranted and accordingly, the same is set aside.”

The petitioner, a Deputy Tahsildar, challenged the decision of the authorities to defer her promotion to the post of Tahsildar on the ground that she had been awarded the minor penalty of censure.

She contended that censure could not operate as a bar to promotion and also questioned the validity of the punishment itself, which had been imposed on the basis of a complaint that she had spoken discourteously to an elderly citizen who had sought information under the Right to Information Act.

The State opposed the petition, contending that G.O.Ms.No.53 specifically provides that the punishment of censure debars a government employee from promotion for one year. It was argued that elaborate enquiry is not required for imposing a minor penalty and that the same could be based on considering the employee's explanation, with reference to Rule 16 of the APCS CCA Rules.

The two issues for consideration were whether a government employee awarded the penalty of censure could be denied promotion for one year, and whether the minor punishment imposed on the petitioner for her alleged conduct towards an RTI applicant was legally sustainable. 

Examining the first issue, the Court held that although the APCS CCA Rules do not expressly prescribe the consequences of censure, the Government was competent under Article 162 of the Constitution to issue executive instructions to fill that gap.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents and an earlier Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, it held that G.O.Ms.No.53 has statutory force and validly provides that every censure debars a government servant from promotion for one year.

The Court held that executive instructions designed to fill gaps in statutory rules can be treated as statutory in nature, and that treating an employee with a blemished record on par with one having a clean record would itself be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

On the second issue, applying the standard of a reasonable and prudent person, the Court held that the petitioner's response could not be regarded as discourteous merely because the complainant perceived it to be disrespectful. It therefore held that the punishment was unwarranted and set aside the order imposing censure. 

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order imposing censure and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Tahsildar in accordance with her seniority and the applicable rules.

Case Title: B. Malathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: W.P. No.17408 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi

Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Services-I

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 140