Deputy Director Cannot Claim Promotion While Facing CBI Trial for Rs 124 Crore Limestone Mining Loss, Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition by a Mines and Geology officer seeking promotion consideration despite a pending CBI trial over alleged facilitation of illegal limestone quarrying causing Rs 124 crore exchequer loss.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati has dismissed a writ petition filed by G. Papa Rao, a Deputy Director in the state's Mines and Geology Department, who sought a direction compelling the respondent authorities to consider his candidature for promotion to the post of Joint Director. Justice Nyapathy Vijay, sitting singly, held that an officer facing grave charges of corruption, dereliction of duty and a pending CBI criminal trial cannot claim promotion as a matter of right, and that extending promotion consideration to such an officer would be contrary to public interest and demoralising to honest officers in the department. The court drew on G.O.Ms.No.257, GAD, dated 10 June 1999, and authoritative Supreme Court and High Court precedents to reach this conclusion.

The Promotion Dispute Before the Court

Papa Rao joined the Mines and Geology Department as a Technical Assistant in 1992. He was promoted through successive cadres — Royalty Inspector in 1996, Assistant Geologist in 2004, Assistant Director in 2005, and Deputy Director in 2017. The next step in the promotional ladder was the post of Joint Director of Mines and Geology.

His bid for that post was derailed when the State government issued G.O.Rt.No.28, Industries and Commerce (Vigilance) Department, dated 9 February 2022, framing articles of charge against him and a colleague, B. Jagannadha Rao, in connection with events dating to 2015. A common departmental enquiry was sanctioned by G.O.Rt.No.26 of the same date. Papa Rao submitted his statement of defence on 22 September 2022, refuting the allegations. The departmental inquiry, however, made no further progress.

A Departmental Promotion Committee screening was convened on 5 March 2026. Papa Rao stood at Serial No. 2 in the seniority list, but his name was deferred on account of the pendency of departmental proceedings. He filed the present writ petition arguing that mere pendency of a charge memo could not be a ground for non-consideration, particularly given earlier orders of the High Court in W.P.No.5938 of 2024 dated 30 July 2024 and observations in CC No.1710 of 2025 dated 17 October 2025.

What the State Disclosed About the Charges

The counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 placed a significantly more serious picture before the court. The DPC had taken note not merely of the departmental charge memo but also of a CBI charge sheet filed against the petitioner for offences under Sections 120-B, 379, 386, 392, 420, 447 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

The substance of the allegations was that Papa Rao, while working as Assistant Director of Mines and Geology (Vigilance), Guntur, misused his official position by deliberately taking no action against large-scale illegal limestone quarrying at Konanki Village in Piduguralla Mandal and at Nadikudi and Kesanupalli villages in Dachepalli Mandal. It was alleged that 2,115,825.14 metric tonnes of limestone were illegally excavated. He was further alleged to have prepared false inspection reports as a member of a divisional inspection team constituted by the Collector, and to have prepared mediator notes that excluded the principal persons responsible for the illegal quarrying.

The loss to the government exchequer was quantified at Rs. 124,46,41,278/— comprising seigniorage fee at Rs. 50 per metric tonne and market value at Rs. 250 per metric tonne. The State had earlier ordered, vide G.O.Ms.No.111, Home (SC.A) Department, dated 12 September 2019, that the matter be entrusted to the CBI for detailed investigation. The CBI investigated, filed a charge sheet against 17 persons in addition to the petitioner, prosecution sanction was accorded on 10 December 2021, and the Special Court for CBI Cases, Vijayawada, took cognisance and numbered the case as C.C.No.3 of 2025 on 17 March 2025. The matter was pending trial at the time the writ petition was heard.

The Screening Committee, after examining the ACRs, found the petitioner not fit for inclusion in the promotion panel.

The Governing Framework: G.O.Ms.No.257 and Its Application

The petitioner had relied on G.O.Ms.No.257, GAD, dated 10 June 1999, which provides a framework for considering the promotion of government employees who face pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings. The G.O. classifies such officers into three groups under Paragraph 5(B): those facing minor charges with no bearing on integrity or efficiency; those whose records are such that they would not be promoted regardless of the charges; and those who would otherwise have been promoted but face charges that, if proved, would suffice to supersede them.

Paragraph 6 of the same G.O., however, contains an explicit restraint: where the charge involves moral turpitude, misappropriation, embezzlement, or grave dereliction of duty, the appointing authority must treat ad hoc promotion as not in the public interest. Promotion may be considered only where the charge is minor and does not involve these elements.

Justice Nyapathy Vijay read Paragraphs 5(B) and 6 together and held that the petitioner's case fell squarely within the category that the G.O. excludes from promotion consideration. The charges of deliberately enabling illegal limestone quarrying on a massive scale, preparing false inspection reports, and the consequent CBI prosecution for corruption-related offences were, in the court's assessment, not minor lapses but grave derelictions bearing directly on integrity.

How the Court Reasoned

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the mere pendency of the charge memo was an insufficient ground for non-consideration. It drew a clear distinction between pendency of a minor departmental charge and pendency of a CBI criminal trial arising from grave allegations of intentional inaction that enabled a loss of over Rs. 124 crore to the public exchequer.

Justice Vijay held that promotion is a mutual duty and obligation — an incentive for an employee who keeps the interest of the department foremost — but that this duty does not extend to employees whose records are not clean. He observed that promoting an officer facing grave charges of corruption would have a demoralising effect on honest officers in the department and would normalise wrongful conduct.

On the argument that the delay in concluding the criminal case was itself a ground for relief, the court was dismissive. It held that delay in criminal proceedings was inevitable given the various dynamics at play in a trial, and that there was no mechanism to compel speedy conclusion. The usual plea of delay could offer no avail where the charges were of this gravity.

The court also addressed the earlier orders in W.P.No.5938 of 2024 and CC No.1710 of 2025. It noted that the direction in W.P.No.5938 of 2024 was to consider the petitioner's case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257 — which the respondents contended they had followed by placing his name before the Screening Committee. The Committee's conclusion, after examining the nature of the charges, was that promotion was not in the public interest. The court found no breach of the earlier direction.

Precedents Applied

Justice Vijay relied on three precedents, each addressing the same core question.

In State of Tamil Nadu v. E. Rangachari, reported at (2012) 12 SCC 462, the Supreme Court set aside orders of the State Tribunal and the Madras High Court that had directed inclusion of an employee in a promotion list while he was facing a criminal case for demanding a bribe. The Supreme Court held that an individual could seek promotion only after acquittal.

A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K.V. Ramana Police Reddy v. Deputy Inspector General of Police, after taking note of G.O.Ms.No.257, refused to direct consideration of the petitioner for promotion as he was facing Anti-Corruption Bureau criminal cases. The Division Bench held: “The petitioner has to come out clean after being absolved from all the said criminal cases involving moral turpitude.”

A Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana in N. Srinivasulu v. State of Telangana (W.A.No.209 of 2020, dated 22 November 2021) considered a similar claim where the officer faced both departmental enquiries involving major punishment charges and a criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Division Bench held that granting promotion in such circumstances “would amount to granting of premium to such officers.” The SLP against that judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29 April 2022.

Outcome

Justice Nyapathy Vijay dismissed W.P.No.8394 of 2026 and all miscellaneous petitions connected to it, with no order as to costs. The interim order that had been in operation since 1 April 2026 did not survive the dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioner's candidature for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Mines and Geology will fall to be considered only after he is absolved of the charges pending before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Vijayawada, in C.C.No.3 of 2025.