‘No sympathy for corruption’: AP High Court denies promotion to officer in Rs 124-crore scam

The CBI alleged that G Papa Rao, while discharging his official duties, “facilitated large-scale illegal excavation and transportation of limestone from Konanki, Nadikudi and Kesanupalli Villages in the state, leading to a loss of over Rs 124.46 crore to the public exchequer. The prosecution also said that the trial was pending before the special CBI court in Vijayawada.

Dealing with the plea of the petitioner, Justice Nyapathy Vijay emphasised that the promotion of an individual is an incentive conferred on the individual for his service in keeping the interests of the department foremost, but added that at the same time, the department is also obligated to grant the benefits of promotion to such individuals. It is a mutual duty and obligation.

The ruling held that the promotion of individuals facing grave charges will have a demoralising effect on honest persons working in the department and normalise wrongful acts.

Technical assistant in 1992

Before assuming charge as the deputy director, Rao joined the Mines and Geology Department as a technical assistant in 1992 and was successively promoted to royalty inspector, assistant geologist, assistant director, and deputy director. His next promotional post was joint director of Mines and Geology.

Justice Nyapathy Vijay pronounced the judgment on September 3.

The case arose from allegations concerning illegal limestone quarrying in 2015 in Konanki, Nadikudi and Kesanupalli villages. The state alleged that Rao, while serving as assistant director of Mines and Geology (Vigilance), had failed to act against illegal quarrying despite being aware of it and had prepared false inspection reports.

The alleged illegal excavation was quantified at 21,15,825.14 metric tonnes of limestone, causing an estimated loss of Rs 124.46 crore to the government exchequer.

State handed over investigation to CBI

Given the magnitude of the alleged irregularities, the Andhra Pradesh government entrusted the matter to the CBI in September 2019. Following its investigation, the CBI filed a charge sheet against 17 persons apart from the petitioner.

Prosecution sanction was subsequently granted against the petitioner, and the special court for CBI cases, Vijayawada, took cognisance of the matter in 2025, which was pending trial.

Meanwhile, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in connection with the same incident. He denied the allegations and submitted his statement of defence in September 2022, but the departmental inquiry did not make further progress.

The petitioner approached the high court, contending that the pendency of the departmental proceedings should not prevent consideration of his promotion.

Representing the petitioner, Advocate Kavitha Gottipati argued that although he was ranked number two in the seniority list, his candidature was deferred by the departmental promotion committee on March 5.

Expected to have clean, unblemished record: Order

The court held that employees facing grave allegations of corruption are not entitled even to be considered for promotion, in the public interest.

The order rejected the argument of the petitioner that delay in concluding criminal proceedings should result in consideration for promotion. It noted that criminal cases can inevitably take time and there is “no magic wand” to ensure their speedy conclusion.

“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,” it observed.

The court held that the petitioner’s claim of innocence could not be examined in the petition, as those issues had to be raised before the criminal court conducting his trial.