Telangana High Court
Ch. Maheshwar vs The State Of Telangana on 18 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
Writ Appeal No.782 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Mr. P.Ravi Shanker, learned counsel for the
appellant. Also heard Mr. B.Krishna, learned Government
Pleader for Services (Home), for respondents No.1 and 2
and Mr.N.Ramu, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to
8.
2. The learned writ court dismissed the writ petition,
W.P.No.20224 of 2023, vide order dated 28.03.2025,
wherein the writ petitioner had sought a declaration that
the action of official respondents No.1 and 2 in not
promoting him to the post of Additional Superintendent of
Police (Armed Reserve) as per Seniority List dated
23.06.2022 on par with respondents No.3 to 8 herein as
per G.O.Ms.No.12 Home (Services-I) Department dated
15.03.2023, was illegal, arbitrary and in violation of
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. He had
2
also sought a declaration to set aside Memo
No.3930/Ser.1/2023 dated 27.06.2023, as illegal and
arbitrary. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner has preferred
this appeal.
3. The writ petitioner was serving as a Deputy
Superintendent of Police (Armed Reserve) with effect from
11.07.2017. While working as Assistant Commissioner of
Police (CAR), Nizamabad, he was placed under suspension,
vide proceedings dated 28.05.2019 during the period from
29.05.2019 to 06.09.2019. Disciplinary proceedings dated
14.02.2022 were initiated against him and he was imposed
a penalty of postponement of annual increment (PPI) for
one year with effect on future increments and pension.
Suspension period was treated as ‘not on duty’. The
appellate authority vide order dated 28.01.2023 modified
the penalty to ‘censure’, while maintaining the suspension
period as ‘not on duty’. The writ petitioner made a
representation on 01.02.2023 for consideration of his case
for promotion to the post of Additional Superintendent of
Police (Armed Reserve) as per Seniority List dated
3
23.06.2022. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)
for the panel year 2022-2023 did not recommend his case
for promotion due to currency of the punishment of
‘censure’. According to the writ petitioner, his juniors were
promoted on 15.03.2023 on recommendation of the DPC.
According to him, his punishment had come to an end on
13.02.2023, counting the original penalty imposed by the
DPC. The learned writ court however held it otherwise.
4. Before us, learned counsel for the writ petitioner
apart from reiterating the grounds raised before the
learned writ court, also relied upon the decision of a
Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in the case of A.Vema
Reddy v. Controller General of Defence Accounts, New
Delhi 1 (paragraph 15).
5. As per the said decisions, the punishment of
‘censure’ cannot be a valid and justifiable legal ground for
overlooking the seniority of the writ petitioner for
promotion. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has
1
2001 (5) ALD 131 (DB)
4
referred to some interim orders passed by a Division Bench
of the composite High Court for the States of Telangana
and Andhra Pradesh in W.P.M.P.No.13135 of 2017 in
W.P.No.10592 of 2017 dated 28.03.2017 and a Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22191 of 2023 dated
17.08.2023. It is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.342 General
Administration (Ser.C) Department dated 04.08.1997 was
also taken into account in the interim order passed by the
learned writ court in W.P.No.22191 of 2023. It is therefore
submitted that the respondents could not have overlooked
the case of the writ petitioner for promotion against the
panel year 2022-2023.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has
defended the impugned judgment. He submits that the cut-
off date for panel year 2022-2023 starts from 01.09.2022
and ends by 31.08.2023. During that period, the writ
petitioner was under currency of punishment imposed by
the DPC on 14.02.2022, though it was modified by the
appellate authority on 28.01.2023 to ‘censure’. In any case,
punishments were in operation when the panel was
5
prepared. He has relied upon G.O.Ms.No.342 dated
04.08.1997, which is also contained in the Telangana Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991
(for short, ‘the Rules’). The G.O. prescribes that ‘censure’
shall debar the individual for promotion/ appointment by
transfer to a higher post during the period of subsistence of
penalty which shall be indicated in the order imposing
penalty subject to a minimum period of one year both
selection and non-selection posts. Rule 9 of the Rules
prescribes the penalties, wherein ‘censure’ has been placed
as a minor penalty.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has relied
upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of
M.P. v. I.A.Qureshi 2, specifically paragraph 8 thereof. He
submits that the Apex Court while considering Rule 10 of
the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1966, which is pari materia to the
present Rules, held that ‘censure’ being a minor penalty, is
not equivalent to a warning, and as such, during currency
2
(1998) 9 SCC 261
6
of the minor penalty, like ‘censure’, the respondents could
not be directed to open the sealed cover containing the
recommendations of the DPC and the recommendations
could not be given effect because the petitioner has not
been fully exonerated and the minor penalty has been
imposed.
8. Therefore, the decision in the case of A.Vema Reddy
(supra) relied upon by the writ petitioner is of no avail and
the writ court has rightly refused to interfere in the matter.
9. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parities, taking note of the relevant
material, narration of facts and dates, which are germane
to the issue in controversy.
10. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was
suffering a penalty of PPI for one year with effect on future
increments and pension as per order dated 14.02.2022
passed by the DPC. The panel for the year 2022-2023 was
prepared taking the cut-off date as 01.09.2022, during
which period the original order of penalty was in operation,
7
even though the penalty was modified by the appellate
authority on 28.10.2023 to ‘censure’. The currency of the
period of ‘censure’ was one year during which period the
writ petitioner could not be considered for promotion as per
G.O.Ms.No.342 dated 04.08.1997. As such, DPC in its
meeting held on 08.03.2023 for the panel year 2022-2023
did not consider the case of the writ petitioner during the
currency of the ‘censure’.
11. The learned Division Bench in the case of A.Vema
Reddy (supra) and the High Court for the States of
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in W.P.M.P.No.13135 of
2017 in W.P.No.10592 of 2017 dated 28.03.2017 (supra)
relied upon by the writ petitioner was not apprised of
G.O.Ms.No.342 dated 04.08.1997. Moreover, the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of I.A.Qureshi (supra), which
was on the subject of currency of minor penalty of ‘censure’
was not brought to the notice of the learned Division
Bench. Therefore, the decisions are distinguishable.
Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment.
8
12. The instant Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
____________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 18.08.2025
GJ