Telangana High Court Upholds Denial of Officer’s Promotion

Hyderabad: A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Moinuddin, dismissed a writ appeal filed by a senior police officer challenging the denial of promotion to the post of additional superintendent of police. The panel heard an appeal filed by Ch. Maheshwar, who argued that as per the seniority list of June 2022, he was entitled to promotion on par with his juniors. The petitioner contended that the only penalty against him was a minor punishment of censure imposed in January 2023, which could not operate as a permanent bar to promotion. He contended that despite this, the departmental promotion committee (DPC) excluded him for the panel year 2022-23. The state relied on a government order of August 1997, which stipulated that a censure order debarred an employee from promotion for one year during its currency. Since the panel year overlapped with his punishment period, it was argued that the DPC rightly excluded him. The panel found no reason to interfere with the single judge’s earlier ruling that had upheld the DPC decision and dismissed the writ appeal.

Absentee official loses job, rules High Court

Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the Telangana High Court ruled that the absence from service for more than five years amounted to “deemed resignation” under service rules. The judge dismissed a writ plea filed by T.V.R. Gangadhar, a mandal revenue inspector relieved from his posting at Chandrugonda in 2008 and transferred to Gundala. He did not join duty, citing ill-health and family disputes. In September 2009, he was again posted as a senior assistant at the tahsil office, Cherla, but he failed to report for duty. Only after a gap of nearly five years, in 2014, he submitted a joining report and sought posting orders. The district collector, Bhadradri-Kothagudem, issued notices calling upon him to explain his prolonged unauthorised absence. The petitioner neither responded nor attended the personal hearing. He contended that his joining report was submitted in 2014, but he was not permitted to rejoin duty, and argued that under a 1991 government circular, he ought to be allowed to join duty pending disciplinary proceedings. He relied on the fact that he was never formally suspended nor removed from service. The government countered that his absence was wilful, unsupported by medical proof and reflected a clear dereliction of duty. It was pointed out that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in 2008 on different issues, and that he was attempting to misrepresent those proceedings as linked to his absence. After examining the record, the judge held that the petitioner “acted according to his whims and fancies” and failed to justify the delay of five years in seeking to rejoin duty.

HC admits plea on custodial torture claim

Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea alleging custodial torture and violation of arrest procedures. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Abhishek Luniya Jain, who allegedly abetted suicide. The petitioner alleged that he was kept in police custody for nearly 40 hours before being produced before the magistrate. He contended that during this period he was subjected to custodial torture, which was reflected in CCTV footage. Though he was granted bail later that month, he stated that the cash seized from him was not fully returned. The petitioner argued that the authorities failed to comply with mandatory safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita during arrest and remand. He sought preservation of CCTV footage to secure evidence of the alleged torture. The judge observed that he would first hear the state before examining the issue and posted the matter to next week.

HC takes up plea on school assistant post

Justice Pulla Karthik of the Telangana High Court took on file a writ plea alleging appointment of a non-local candidate as a school assistant under the local quota in Nirmal district. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Bindge Naganath. The petitioner contended that state education authorities illegally appointed Patil Ambadas Sambhaji to the post of school assistant (Social Studies, Marathi) under the local quota despite his being a non-local candidate. He alleged that such action was arbitrary, unjust and violative of the Constitution. He sought directions to cancel the appointment of the unofficial respondent, to consider his own appointment to the post with consequential benefits, including seniority, and to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officials responsible for the alleged violation. The petitioner prayed for the imposition of exemplary costs on the authorities for depriving him of his rightful appointment. The judge posted the matter to Monday.