5 hrs ago
Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Promotion in CBI Corruption Case
The court considered whether a government officer should receive a higher job position while serious corruption charges against him are still being examined.
The officer, G Papa Rao, was accused of allowing illegal limestone mining.
Investigators said this may have cost the government more than Rs 124 crore.
Rao said the long-running cases should not stop officials from considering his promotion.
The court disagreed with him.
It said promotions are rewards for good service and normally require a clean record.
The judges also said promoting someone facing serious allegations could discourage honest workers.
The court said Rao must argue that he is innocent before the criminal court handling his trial.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court denied G Papa Rao’s request for promotion while criminal and disciplinary proceedings remain pending.
The Central Bureau of Investigation alleged that Rao enabled illegal limestone excavation and transport, causing an estimated Rs 124.46 crore loss to the public exchequer.
The allegations relate to 21,15,825.14 metric tonnes of limestone excavated in 2015 from villages in Andhra Pradesh.
The court said promoting an employee facing grave corruption allegations could demoralise honest staff and normalise wrongful conduct.
Rao argued that delays in the proceedings should not block his promotion, but the court said his innocence must be decided in the criminal trial.
- Who
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court, G Papa Rao, the Central Bureau of Investigation, and the Andhra Pradesh Mines and Geology Department.
- What
- The court dismissed Rao’s plea seeking consideration for promotion while criminal and disciplinary proceedings were pending.
- Where
- The alleged quarrying occurred in Konanki, Nadikudi, and Kesanupalli villages in Andhra Pradesh; the criminal case is pending before the Special CBI Court in Vijayawada.
- When
- The judgment was pronounced on September 3; the alleged illegal quarrying occurred in 2015, and the CBI investigation was handed over in September 2019.
- Why
- The court held that an employee facing grave corruption allegations and lacking a clean record should not be promoted in the public interest.
Petitioner’s Argument
Court’s Position
Effect of pending proceedings
Petitioner’s Argument
Rao argued that the delay in concluding the departmental proceedings and criminal case should not prevent consideration of his promotion.
Court’s Position
The court said the pendency of serious corruption allegations justified treating his promotion case differently and excluding him from promotion consideration in the public interest.
Seniority and eligibility
Petitioner’s Argument
Rao’s counsel argued that he was ranked second on the seniority list and that the departmental promotion committee deferred his candidature.
Court’s Position
The court held that seniority alone does not establish an entitlement to promotion when an employee does not have a clean and unblemished record.
Claim of innocence
Petitioner’s Argument
Rao denied the allegations and submitted a statement of defence in the departmental proceedings.
Court’s Position
The court said his claim of innocence could not be examined in the promotion petition and must be raised before the criminal court conducting the trial.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- G Papa Rao, Deputy Director of Mines and Geology
- Alleged loss
- More than Rs 124.46 crore to the public exchequer
- Alleged excavation
- 21,15,825.14 metric tonnes of limestone
- Alleged conduct
- Facilitating illegal excavation and transportation and preparing false inspection reports
- Investigation
- The Andhra Pradesh government handed the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation in September 2019
- Criminal proceedings
- The CBI filed a charge sheet against 17 people besides Rao, and the Special CBI Court in Vijayawada took cognisance in 2025
- Promotion sought
- Rao’s next promotional post was Joint Director of Mines and Geology
Quotes
Justice Nyapathy Vijay
Andhra Pradesh High Court judge who delivered the ruling
“One-dimensional sympathy for the employee facing grave allegations of corruption, embezzlement of public money, etc., would seriously impair the morality in the department. An employee facing serious allegations of bribery cannot be placed on par with the other employees, and his case has to be treated differently.”
indianexpress.com
“The right of an employee to be promoted is, at the least, expected to have a clean and unblemished record, and in the absence of such a clean record, the department is not under a duty to promote such an individual.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Indore High Court Acquits Former Official in Corruption Case
ACB Seeks Sanction to Prosecute Suspended Mumbai Judge
Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes ASI Penalty in Bribery Case
Odisha Special Vigilance Courts Jail Three Former Officials
Karnataka Suspends IAS Officer After KPSC Recruitment Scam Arrest
CBI Alleges Former Minister’s Family Bribed Mining Official
Explosives Found in Vijayawada Bus After Luggage Mix-Up
Vijayawada Collects 15,000 Kg Puja Waste After Ganesh Immersions
FTPCCI, EAGLE Plan Drug-Free India Short Film Contest
Hyderabad Leads Metros in Electric Vehicle Charging Growth
