Smt Y Srileela vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes strictly in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999. The consideration must also duly take into account the Enquiry Officer's Report dated 29.10.2018. The respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not explicitly rule on the arbitrariness, illegality, or unconstitutionality of the non-finalization of disciplinary proceedings, but rather focused on ensuring the promotion consideration followed the prescribed guidelines and considered the inquiry report. The ratio decidendi is that promotion considerations for employees facing pending disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established government guidelines and consider relevant inquiry reports.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Y. Srileela, a Deputy Commissioner (Enforcement) in the State GST department, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to finalize disciplinary proceedings initiated against her vide G.O.Rt.No.47 dated 30.11.2016, despite the Commissioner of Inquiries' report dated 29.10.2018. She also sought consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes without reference to these pending proceedings. The petitioner contended that her case was not being considered for promotion due to the pendency of these proceedings. The respondents are the State of Telangana, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and the Departmental Promotion Committee.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the first respondent in not finalizing and concluding the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.47 dated 30.11.2016, despite the report of the Commissioner of Inquiries dated 29.10.2018, is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that she is eligible and qualified for promotion. Her grievance is that the respondents are not considering her for promotion due to the pendency of departmental proceedings. She relied on G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999, which lays down guidelines for considering employees against whom disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending for promotion, requiring an examination of whether the charges involve moral turpitude or misappropriation of funds. The petitioner contended that the appointing authority failed to examine her case in terms of these guidelines and mechanically denied promotion. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner's case would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed in terms of the guidelines formulated in G.O.Ms.No.257 dated 10.06.1999.