Hyderabad: Chargesheets key graft case againt government servants

Hyderabad: The government servants, who were denied promotions because of pending Anti-Corrup-tion Bureau cases or disciplinary proceedings against them, will be pleased with the Hyderabad High Court ruling on Saturday.

The court said that since the case was registered on the allegation that a bribe was demanded and accepted, and no chargesheet has been filed nor permission for prosecution has been sought, the claim for promotion cannot be deferred.

The court ruled that such government servants are entitled to be considered for promotion without reference to the pending crimes against them if they are otherwise eligible and suitable.

While disposing of a batch of petitions by government servants, Justice P. Naveen Rao pointed out that “in these writ petitions, the vexed question, whether petitioners are entitled to be considered for promotion pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings against them, that visits this court more often than any other issue, calls for consideration.”

“When chargesheets are filed against government servants, a trial has to be conducted against them. So then, those government servants are not entitled for promotion,” the judge ruled.

The judge observed that “to maintain sanctity in public service, no person who is facing such serious allegations can be rewarded with promotion. It is not in public interest. The policy of the government is clear and unambiguous. In terms thereof, petitioners are not entitled for promotion even on ad hoc basis when criminal cases are pending.”

He said further that “It cannot be said that such employee is reme-diless. If he comes clean on the charge of illegal gratification, he can claim all benefits from the past date.”

Referring to the plea of a government servant, who wanted the court to quash disciplinary proceedings against him on the grounds of delay in initiating and in concluding disciplinary proceedings against him, the judge said, “This court is not inclined to quash the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of delay.”

The judge noted that the incident related to the period between 2007 and 2008 when the petitioner was working as Town Planning Offi-cer and, after drawing up of charges, it appe-ars there was no prog-ress in the enquiry.

The judge pointed out that there was no justification for not concluding the disciplinary proceedings after they were initiated, more so when the initiation itself was eight years after the date of the alleged incident.

The judge directed the authorities to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, and if, for any reason, disciplinary proceedings are not concluded, the petitioner shall be considered for promotion without reference to pending disciplinary proceedings after the four month time period granted by the court.

Answering the question whether an empl-oyee can claim promotion on the grounds that no chargesheet was drawn up/served, though the decision was taken to initiate disciplinary action, the judge said that it was deemed that disciplinary proceedings are set in motion and pending. Thus, petitioners are not entitled to claim promotion.”

In two cases where no charges were framed against the employees, the judge pointed out that having decided to initiate disciplinary action, there was no justification for the government to keep silent and not frame the charges and conduct an enquiry.

The judge said, “Thus, in the facts of these two cases and by applying the balancing process, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to conclude the disciplinary action as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. For any reason, disciplinary proceedings are not concluded, delay not attributable to petitioners, their entitlement for promotion may be considered in accordance with law.”