E.Srinivasulu, v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police,

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services for respondents.

2.

This petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents in not granting notional promotion to the petitioner in the cadre of Head Constable on par with his junior and further promotion in the cadre of Assistant Sub-Inspector, as illegal and arbitrary.

3.

The petitioner was appointed as Police Constable (Civil) in Nalgonda District vide order dated 21.12.1989. He also completed the pre-promotion training for Police Constables fit to act as Head Constables (Civil) of Nalgonda District. While so, the petitioner was suspended on certain irregularities, and after enquiry, the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District, inflicted upon him the punishment of PPI for one year treating the period of suspension as not on duty vide order dated 29.12.2010. The appeal and the revision filed by petitioner were rejected. Consequently, he filed a mercy petition before the Government and that the Government, after consideration of the entire records, issued G.O.Rt.No.1419 dated 08.08.2012 setting aside the order of punishment dated 29.12.2010. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable vide proceedings dated 12.09.2012 of Superintendent of Police.

ARR, J 4.

The grievance of petitioner is that even though the punishment imposed upon him was set aside by the Government on 08.08.2012, the respondents have not considered his case for promotion from 26.05.2011 on par with his junior in the cadre of Head Constable. 5.

When the matter came up for admission, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner would submit a representation to the respondents concerned and the respondents may be directed to consider the same within a time frame.

6.

Learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondents submits that if the petitioner submits any representation, the respondents would consider the same in accordance with law.

7.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents concerned within four weeks from today, and on filing such application, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter.

8.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

_______________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 14th September, 2017 sj

ARR, J