Telangana High Court
V. Nagarjung vs Sri.Mohunandan Rao Ias on 17 July, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CONTEMPT CASE No. 2185 of 2025
AND
Review I.A. No. 2 of 2025
In
WRIT PETITION No. 3009 of 2018
17th July, 2026
Contempt Case No. 2185 of 2025
Between:
V. Nagarjuna, S/o Yakaiah
... Petitioner
AND
Sri M. Raghunandan Rao, IAS, and others
... Respondents
Review I.A. No. 2 of 2025
The State of Telangana,rep. by its Principal Secretary
Agriculture and Cooperation Department, and another
... Petitioners
AND
V. Nagarjuna, S/o Yakaiah, and another
... Respondents
COMMON ORDER:
2
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, J
The petitioner, V. Nagarjuna, was working as an Assistant Market
Supervisor in the Agricultural Market Committee, Thorrur, in the year 2012,
when a complaint was received against him alleging that he had stopped
certain lorries at the Pedda Nagaram check-post and forcibly collected
money from them. Based on the complaint, FIR No. 177 of 2012 was
registered at Thorrur Police Station for the offence punishable under Section
384 IPC. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet before the
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur, and the same was taken on file as
C.C. No. 568 of 2012. During the pendency of the criminal case, the
petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 25.09.2012.
After a full-fledged trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the petitioner vide
judgment dated 21.03.2013, and he was reinstated into service on
15.04.2013. However, during the period of suspension, his junior
(respondent No. 3) was promoted as Supervisor. Since the petitioner was not
promoted on par with his junior despite his acquittal in the criminal case, he
filed W.P. No. 3009 of 2018 before this Court.
1.1. By order dated 02.01.2025, this Court disposed of the writ
petition by directing the respondent-authorities to consider the case of the
petitioner for promotion as Assistant Secretary on par with his junior, with
all consequential benefits, by restoring his seniority position, within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
1.2. Alleging that the respondent-authorities had not complied with
the order dated 02.01.2025 passed by this Court in the writ petition, the
petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 2185 of 2025. Seeking review of the
said order, the respondent-authorities filed Review I.A. No. 2 of 2025.
2. Heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel
representing Ms. Mantha Lakshmi Anusha, learned counsel on record for
3
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, J
the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III. Perused
the record.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, subsequent to
the acquittal of the petitioner, he was granted notional promotion as
Supervisor with effect from 14.12.2012 on par with respondent No. 3 (Mr.
Mohd. Lawshareef) vide proceedings dated 27.11.2025. It is contended that
the respondent-authorities have complied with the orders of this Court only
partially, as subsequent notional promotions have not been granted to the
petitioner. It is further contended that once the petitioner has been granted
notional promotion, he becomes fully eligible for the next promotion, in
terms of the order of this Court, on par with his junior. It is submitted that
respondent No. 3 was thereafter promoted as Assistant Secretary with effect
from 20.12.2021 and later as Secretary with effect from 09.06.2023,
whereas the petitioner was not considered for promotion as Assistant
Secretary with effect from 20.12.2021, thereby violating the orders of this
Court.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-III, based on the counter
affidavit filed by the Director of Agricultural Marketing, contends that the
petitioner was placed under suspension on three occasions, namely:
(i) from 25.09.2012 to 15.04.2013 due to registration of a
criminal case;
(ii) from 30.01.2018 to 01.04.2019 on account of financial
irregularities involving the crediting of public funds amounting to
Rs.1,75,889 into the petitioner’s personal account; and
(iii) from 28.04.2023 to 27.06.2024 due to allegations of
physical assault, abuse, use of unparliamentary language against a
superior officer Mr. S. Niranjan, the former Secretary of
4
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, JAgricultural Market Committee, thereby creating nuisance, which
constituted violation of Rules 3(1), 3(2), and 3(3) of the Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
4.1. Learned Government Pleader further submits that, seeking
regularisation of the suspension periods, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 11.11.2024 and thereafter filed W.P. No. 35956 of 2024
before this Court. By order dated 23.12.2024, this Court disposed of the writ
petition, without entering into the merits of the matter, by directing the
second respondent-Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the
representation dated 11.11.2024.
4.2. It is contended that, based on the report of the Enquiry Officer,
the Chairman, AMC, Jangaon, proposed the punishment of “Stoppage of
two annual grade increments with cumulative effect” and forwarded the
proposal to the Vigilance Commission for concurrence.
4.3. It is further contended that one Mrs. O. Uma Maheshwari,
Security Guard in the Office of the Agricultural Market Committee,
Jangaon, lodged a complaint before the District Collector, Jangaon, on
28.03.2025 alleging that the petitioner had misbehaved with her. The
District Collector, Jangaon, vide letter dated 29.04.2025, directed that the
services of the petitioner be surrendered to the Director of Agricultural
Marketing, Government of Telangana, pursuant to which the petitioner
reported before the Office of the Director of Agricultural Marketing,
Hyderabad, on 01.05.2025.
4.4. It is contended that disciplinary proceedings are being initiated
against the petitioner under the Telangana State Civil Services (Conduct)
5
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, J
Rules, 1964, as well as under the provisions of The Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
4.5. Learned Government Pleader submits that the first suspension
period, from 25.09.2012 to 15.04.2013, was regularised after the petitioner’s
acquittal in the criminal case. However, the disciplinary proceedings relating
to the other two suspension periods are still pending, and an appropriate
decision on regularisation of those suspension periods will be taken in
accordance with law based on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.
It is, therefore, contended that the question of granting notional promotion
on par with the petitioner’s junior would arise only thereafter and not before.
4.6. Learned Government Pleader refers to paragraph (e) under the
grounds of the Review Application, wherein it is stated as follows:
“e. The Writ petitioner is not eligible for promotion as Asst.
Secretary as his suspension period from 30.01.2018 to 01.04.2019
(14 months & 2 days) and 28.04.2023 to 27.06.2024 (13 months & 29
days) is not regularized. After conclusion of the Disciplinary cases
pending against him and suspension period regularization of the
petitioner i.e., Sri V. Nagarjun, Supervisor i.e., from 30.01.2018 to
01.04.2019 (14 months & 2 days) and 28.04.2023 to 27.06.2024 (13
months & 29 days) will be examined as per rules and considered for
promotion as Assistant Secretary as per the orders of the Hon’ble
High Court Dt. 02.01.2025 in W.P. No. 3009/2018.”
4.7. Learned Government Pleader refers to the Proceedings dated
27.11.2025 wherein the petitioner was notionally promoted as Supervisor
with effect from 14.12.2012 on par with his junior (respondent No.3).
5. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in response to the
counter affidavit, essentially contending that the petitioner was under
6
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, Jsuspension from 30.01.2018 to 01.04.2019 on allegations of
misappropriating an amount of Rs.1,75,889 and creating a fake WhatsApp
group. It is contended that an enquiry into the said allegations was
conducted after a lapse of three years on 22.03.2021 and concluded on
05.07.2022; however, the enquiry report was not communicated to the
petitioner, nor has any punishment been imposed till date. With regard to the
suspension period from 28.04.2023 to 27.06.2024, it is contended that the
matter is pending before the Court and that the Court has directed the
respondent-authorities to treat the suspension period as “on duty”. Though
punishment has been proposed, the same has not yet been imposed. It is
further contended that the mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot
be a ground to withhold promotion once the petitioner falls within the zone
of consideration and that the petitioner’s name was excluded from the
promotion panel solely on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings.
6. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record,
it is evident that the petitioner has been granted notional promotion as
Supervisor with effect from 14.12.2012 on par with respondent No. 3 (Mr.
Mohd. Lawshareef) vide proceedings dated 27.11.2025. However, it is
equally borne out from the record that the petitioner was subsequently
placed under suspension from 30.01.2018 to 01.04.2019 on allegations of
financial irregularities/misappropriation of public funds to the tune of
Rs.1,75,889. He was again suspended from 28.04.2023 to 27.06.2024 on
allegations of physical assault, abuse, use of unparliamentary language on a
superior officer, Mr. S. Niranjan, former Secretary, and creating nuisance,
thereby violating Rules 3(1), 3(2), and 3(3) of the Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1964. Disciplinary proceedings in respect of both these suspension
periods are pending. It is the stand of the respondent-authorities that, in one
of the disciplinary proceedings relating to misappropriation of funds, a
7
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, Jpunishment of stoppage of increments has been proposed and the proposal
has been forwarded to the Vigilance Commission for concurrence, while in
the other disciplinary proceedings, the departmental enquiry is still in
progress. It is also the stand of the respondents that respondent No. 3, Mr.
Lawshareef, was subsequently promoted as Assistant Secretary and
thereafter as Secretary on his own merit, and the petitioner cannot claim
parity merely because his junior was promoted.
7. In the above backdrop, the point that arises for consideration is –
“whether the pendency of disciplinary/departmental proceedings against
the petitioner constitutes a valid ground for denial or deferment of
promotion?”
8. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in N. Srinivasulu v. The State of
Telangana 1, wherein the Division Bench referred to the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.O. Arumugam vs. State of Tamil Nadu2,
wherein it was held in paragraph 5 as follows:
“5. As to the merits of the matter, it is necessary to state
that every civil servants has a right to have his case considered for
promotion according to his turn and it is a guarantee flowing from
Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The consideration of
promotion could be postponed only on reasonable grounds. To
avoid arbitrariness, it would be better to follow certain uniform
principles. The promotion of persons against whom charge has
been filed in criminal case may be deferred till the proceedings are
concluded. They must, however, be considered for promotion if they
are exonerated or acquitted from the charges. If found suitable, they
shall then be given the promotion with retrospective effect from the
date on which their juniors were promoted.”
1
2021 SCC OnLine TS 3528
2
1991 Supp (2) SCC 199
8
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, J
9. The Hon’ble Division Bench also referred to the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Jankiraman 3,
wherein the Supreme Court dealt with cases of employees facing
departmental enquiries and criminal proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in paragraphs 16 and 17 of K.V. Jankiraman (supra), held that the
sealed cover procedure has to be adopted in respect of an employee
against whom a charge memorandum has been issued in disciplinary
proceedings or a charge sheet has been filed in criminal proceedings.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that “mere pendency of preliminary
investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the
authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure.”
9.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that “as has been
the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately
long time and may never culminate in the issuance of a charge
memorandum or charge sheet”.The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that
“if the allegations are serious, the authorities have the power to suspend
the employee under the relevant rules, and such suspension itself
permits resort to the sealed cover procedure.”
10. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana 4.
“14. However, the matter as to promotion stands on a different
footing and the judgments of the High Court have to be sustained.
The sealed cover procedure is now a well-established concept in
service jurisprudence. The procedure is adopted when an employee3
1991 (4) SCC 109
4
(1999) 5 SCC 762
9
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, Jis due for promotion, increment,etc., but disciplinary/criminal
proceedings are pending against him and hence the findings as to
his entitlement to the service benefit of promotion, increment etc.
are kept in a sealed cover to be opened after the proceedings in
question are over [see: Union of India v. K.V.Jankiraman, AIR 1991
SC 2010 at p.2013]. As on 1-1-1986 the only proceedings pending
against the respondent were the criminal proceedings which ended
in acquttal of the respondent wiping out with retrospective effect
the adverse consequences, if any, flowing from the pendency
thereof. The departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated with
the delivery of the charge-sheet on 3-12-1991. In the year 1986-87
when the respondent became due for promotion and when the
Promotion Committee held its proceedings, there were no
departmental enquiry proceedings pending against the respondent.
The sealed cover procedure could not have been resorted to nor
could the promotion in the year 1986-87 be withheld for the DE
proceedings initiated at the fag end of the year 1991. The High Court
was therefore right in directing the promotion to be given effect to
to which the respondent was found entitled as on 1-1-1986. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, the order of punishment made
in the year 1995 cannot deprive the respondent of the benefit of the
promotion earned on 1-1-1986.”
11. In the instant case, it is evident that the petitioner was granted
notional promotion as Supervisor on par with his junior, Mr. Lawshareef
(respondent No. 3), with effect from 14.12.2012. However, the petitioner
was subsequently placed under suspension from 30.01.2018 to 01.04.2019
on charges of misappropriation of public funds to the tune of Rs.1,75,889, in
respect of which the punishment of “Stoppage of two annual grade
increments” has been proposed and the proposal is pending before the
Vigilance Commission for concurrence. Thereafter, in another case
involving allegations of abuse, assault, use of unparliamentary language,
10
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, J
and creating nuisance in the office, the petitioner was placed under
suspension from 28.04.2023 to 27.06.2024, and the disciplinary proceedings
in relation thereto are still pending.
12. Therefore, merely because this Court directed the grant of notional
promotion as Supervisor on par with respondent No. 3 cannot be construed
as a blanket direction to perennially continue granting all future promotions
on par with the junior irrespective of disciplinary proceedings. The notional
promotion as Supervisor was granted solely on account of the petitioner’s
acquittal in C.C. No. 568 of 2012 by judgment dated 21.03.2013.
13. Therefore, in the light of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in K. Jankiraman(supra), and Degala Suryanarayana (supra), it is to
be noted that, once an employee is suspended, either due to disciplinary
proceedings or criminal case, prior to considering his candidature for
promotion, then his candidature has to be considered under a Sealed Cover
procedure. If he is exonerated in the departmental proceedings/acquitted in
the criminal case by the trial Court, then he should be granted notional
promotion from such prior date when his junior was promoted. In such case,
he would be entitled to only notional benefits and not actual monetary
benefits as he has not shouldered / discharged higher responsibilities
pertaining to such higher/promotion post; and he would be entitled to actual
monetary benefits only from the date he starts discharging responsibilities of
higher post. In case he found guilty of the charges against him in the
departmental proceedings / criminal case, then the authorities can proceed
against him in accordance with the relevant Service Rules.
14. Therefore, at the time of constituting the Departmental Promotion
Committee for considering candidature of an employee for promotion for a
particular Panel Year, if there are no pending disciplinary proceedings /
11
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, J
criminal case against that employee for that particular Panel Year, then the
candidature of that employee has to be considered outright without resorting
to Sealed Cover procedure. However, if there are pending cases against an
employee already by the date of DPC for a particular Panel Year, then he
should be considered under a Sealed Cover procedure for that particular
Panel Year. Therefore, in either of the situations, consideration of
candidature of the employee is inevitable, except for the manner of
consideration. If the employee is found NOT guilty in the disciplinary
enquiry/criminal case, then all benefits, notionally, have to be given to him
from such date when his junior was promoted to the post/grade.
15. Therefore, considering K.V. Jankiraman(supra), and Degala
Suryanarayana (supra), in the instant case also, if a charge memo has
already been issued to the petitioner (in connection with misappropriation of
funds or for the alleged abuse/assault of superior officer) by the date the
Departmental Promotion Committee is constituted for considering
promotions for Assistant Secretary, or Secretary, as the case may be, for a
particular Panel Year, then the candidature of the petitioner has to be
considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Secretary, or Secretary, as
the case may be, by following the Sealed Cover procedure. The sealed cover
has to be opened after conclusion of such disciplinary proceedings. If the
petitioner is exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, then he can be
granted notional promotion from the date his junior was promoted to that
particular grade/post. The disciplinary proceedings that occurred
subsequently, cannot deprive the petitioner for consideration of promotion
to a post for a previous Panel Year.
15.1. It is also to be noted that the petitioner would be entitled to
only notional benefits like notional pay fixation, notional increment etc.
12
cc_2185_2025 & review_ia_2_2025
in wp_3009_2018
NBK, J
from such retrospective date, and he cannot claim actual monetary benefits
from that retrospective date, despite exoneration in disciplinary proceedings,
as he has not discharged the higher responsibilities related to that higher
post. The petitioner shall however be entitled to actual monetary benefits
from the date he assumes charge of the higher post and discharges its
responsibilities.
15.2. On the other hand, if the petitioner is found guilty in the
disciplinary proceedings, then he cannot even claim notional promotion, as
he is required to be dealt with Service Rules governing such situation.
16. Accordingly, the Review I.A. No. 2 of 2025 stands disposed of with
the above directions. The contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
17th July, 2026
ksm
