High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [\/andamus to declare the action of the Respondent No. 2 in issuing the orders in CCLAs Proceedings No. VS.IV (2ylBBll2016 dated 0210812019 where at the Respondent No. 2 has upheld the orders of the 3rd Respondent issued vide Proceedings No. A4l158i2016 dated 1111212016 as arbttrary. illegal and in contravention of the provisions of 21 and 22 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classif ication, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1991 and set aside the CCLAs Proceedings No. VS.IV (2)t1881t2016 dated 02108t2019 and consequently suspend the operation of the orders issued by the Respondent No. 3 issued vide Proceedings No. A4l1 58/2016 dated 1111212016 lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit file,C in support of the petition, the High CoLrt may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders issued by the Responrlent No. 3 issued vide Proceedings No. A4l158/20'l 6 dated 11112/2016 pendine disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T. VIJAY HANUMAN SINGH Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITIoNNo.177 of2O2O ORDER: This Writ Petition is hied seeking the following relief "... . to dcclare the action of the Respondent No 2 in issuing the orders in CCLA's Proccedirtgs No.VS.lV 12)11881 l2016 dated 02'08 2019 where at the Respondent No.2 has upheld the orders of the 3"t Respondent issued vidc Procecdtngs No.A4/ 158/2016 dated 11-12-2016 as arbitrary' illegal and in contravention o[ the provisions of 21 & 22 ot lhe Telangar-ra Civil Services (Classification, Conduct & Appeal) Rutes, 1991 and set aside the CCLA's Procee<lings No.VS.tV(2)/ 188 1 /2016 dated 02 Oa 2Ot9 and consequently suspcnci the operation oI the ordcrs issued by the Respondent No 3 issued vidc Irroceeclings No.A4/ 158/2016 dated 1l 12-2016 '" lleard Sri T Vrjay Hanuman Singh, learned counscl for the 2) pclitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearlng lor rcspondenls 1 to 3 Lcarned counscl for the petitioner submits that while the 3) petitioner was \vorking as Village Revenue Ofhcer, an Article of Charge vrde Proc.No A4 l\5812016, dated 28 03'2O16, was issued by respondcnt No.3 against the petitioner alleging that while he was working as ln-charge VRO of Kalwaral Village, he has created bogus Pattad:rr Pass ]looks and Title Deeds by changing the names in old Pattaclar Pass Books and Title Deeds in respect of survey no 158 of the petitioner has submitted his Kalwaral Village, to which, As the said exPlanation was not explanation on 3 i.03.20 16 2 PK,.I $rP li7 2020 convtncing, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct a cletailed enquiry into the chzrrges levelled against the petitio-rer.. Accordingiy, the Enquiry Oflicer has conductecl enquiry and subrnitted Enquiry Report on 1'9.09.2016 holding thar rhe charges againsr the pcti(ioner were proved. Further, based on the said trnquiry Rcport, the third respondent, viclc Proc.No.A4/ lSBl2016, dated 11.12.2016, has imposed the punishment of stoppage of four annual grade increments with cumuletlive effecl and thc suspcnsion periocl \\:rs dire cl,ec1 to be 'not on duty' in terms of FR-S4 (B)(7) Aggrievecl br. rhe said orclers, the peti[iont:r has preferred an appeal before respcndent No.2, rvho vide order dal-ed 02.08.2019, has drsmisscd tlrc appeal in a mechanical manner r,r,ithout adjudicating the grour: ds rarsed by the petitioner in proper perspective. Learned counsel he.s contenclecl that the Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquirv in the manner prescribed r-rnder Rulcs 2l and 22 of 'l'elangana Cir.il Scrvices (Classihcation, Conducl & Appcal) Rulcs, 1991 (in sLorr ,CCA,Ru1es,), and copy of Enquiry Report was not furnished on [he petitioner as mandated u':rder Rule 2I (2) of thc CCA Rules and Lhc same caused serious preludicc to the peLitioncr. Hence, the imposition of punishment on thc petitioner suffers for want cf observatron of prlnciples of natural justicc and aud.i alterann panerL. Hence, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and liablc to bc irrterfered with. -3 PK, J wP 177 2020 Learncd counscl has further submitted that charge lr:rerno issued to the pelitioner is vague in nature and no specific incident was attributed. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to set aside the punishmcnt order dated 11.12.20L6 and the order dated 02 .Oa.2O 19 passed by the appellate authority. . Reliance has been placed on: a) b) c) Sunkq.ra Sujana u. District Collector, Ranga Red.dg Districtl; Union of India a. Mohd. Rarnzan Khan2; and Zaheer Ahmed. Khan o. A.P. Stq.te Wakf Board' Hgderabad3 4) Pcr contra, thc lcarned GoverLrment Pleader has submitted that the 'l'ahsildar, Sadashn, Nagar, has submitted a report dated

08.01.20 16 stating that the petitioner has created bogus pattadar Pass Books and 'litle Dccds in respect of survey No.158 of Kalwaral Vi11age, which is a Govcrnment land and not a patta land, duly tampering the village records and pahani, and issued manual pahani nakal to one N.Suresh S/o.Chinna Parvaiah R/o.Ka1wara1. It is further reporLed that carlier the pelilioner was also warned for misguiding the olficers to make online pahani to the persons who were not aclual pattadars. Basing on the above report, respondent No.3 has framed charges under Rule 20 of CCA Rules vide charge | 201.4 l3l ALD 70 r {1991) r scc 588 r 2014 (3) Ar-n 5L -4- PK. ] u'P l17 2010 memo dated 28.O3.2016. Thcreafter, thc charged officer has submitted his explanation, which was not convincing. Hence, respondent No.3 has appornLed Lhe Revcnue L)ivtsional Officer, Kamareddy, as trnquiry Officer, u,ho in turn, afLt:r conducting thc enquiry, has submitted Enquiry tleport vide Lr.\o.A4/4847 12016, dated 19.0'9.2O 16, holding that the chargcs frarned against the Charged Olficer are proved. Based on the said Enquiry Report, respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated I 1.12.2O16 has awarded the punishment- of stoppage of four Annual Grade lncrements with cumulative eflecl undcr Rulc 9 (vi) of CCA Ilulcs enc1 Lhc samc was confirmed by the Appcllatc Authority vidc proceedings dated

02.08-2019, Therefore, the resp.ondents are.juslifie d rn imposing the punishmen.- on thc petltioner for lhe O.or",-, chargcs. It is lurther submitted thal as per Rule 21 (5) ot CCA Rules, I lhe Disciplinary Authorrty having regard to the findings on all or any of the Articlcs ol Char6le and on Ll-re basis of the evidence adduced dr ring the inquiry is of the opinion that, any ol thc penallres specified irL clauses (r,i) to (x) of Rule 9 of CCA Rules should be imposed on the Government Servant, it is not nccessary lo give the Governrnent Servant any opportunit) ol making representation on the pena t1. proposed to be imposed. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court 1-ras held that only on the ground that Enquiry Report was not furnished to the -5- PK, J wP l?, 2020 delinquent officer, the punishment cannot be set aside and the has to state what prejudice is caused to him for no[ the enquiry report. It is further contended that the instead of hling an appeal before the Government has this Court. Thereiore, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petitioner lurnishing petitioner approached petition. 5) This Court has Laken note of the submissions made by respecLive parties and perused the record' Tl-rc main ground urgcd by the learned counsel for the petittoner 6) in this writ petition is that the copy of enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner.3nd in the absence of availability of the enquiry report, the petitioner was prejudiced 7\ To adjudicate upon the said contention' this Court feels it is necessary to refer Rule 21 (2) of the CCA Rules' which reads as under: "The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if aly' held by t1le disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority a copy of the rcport of the inquiring authority iogether with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of cha-rge to the Government servantwhoshallberequiredtosubmit,ifhesodesires'hiswritten representation of submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant." i -6- PK, J wP 177 2020 L 8) A bar,: reading of the above Rule makes it abundantly clear that copy of thr: enquiry report shall necessarily be lurnished on the delinquent officer so as to enable him to su rmit his written representatlon 9) In this regard, it is apt to mention that a Con rtitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, .ECIL, Hgderabad a. B.Kan'unakal has held that when the Enquiry Ofhcer is nol the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Enquiry Ofhcer's report before the disc iplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee wrth regard to the charges levelled againsrt him. It further held that s uch a right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself agarnst the charges levelled against him arLd a denial of the Dnquiry Oflicer's report, before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable c pportLlnity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach o:-the principles of naLural justice. It [herefore held that the delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report even if the {italutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent cn the subject and it should bt: furnisl-red irrespective of the nature o I punishment. It also held th,at failure on the part of the employee to ask for the report o AIR 199+ sc to74 -7 PK, J cannot be construed as a waiver of his right and that whether or not he asks for the report, it has to be furnished to him. It further held that the employee has a right to make representation to [he disciplinary authority against the hndings recorded in the enquiry report and this right is an integral part of the opportunity of defence against the charges. Denial of such a right, the Court held, is a breach of principles of natural justice. 10) Following the above said principle of law, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Zaheer Ahmed Khan's case (referred supra), has held as under: . "59. thS plea of non supply of enquiry report copy was siecihcally: raised by'th; petitioner in the appeal before the Tribunal, but this point has not even been adverted to by the Tribunal. The petitioner was gravely prejudiced by non supply of the enquiry report dated 15.1.2005 of M.A. Hafeez Siddiqui and he was denied an opportunity to represent against the frndings of the Enquiry Ofhcer to the Board. In this view of the matter, there can be no doubt that there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. ..." 11) In the instant case, admittedly, the copy of the enquiry report wherein the charges levelled against the delinquent employee were held proved, was not served on the petitioner and non-furnishing of the Enquiry Officer's Report on the delinquent employee, before the Disciplinary Authority takes a decision on the charges, is nothing but denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and the same amounts to violation of principles of natural -8 PK, J u'I, lr7 2020 justice. 02 08 2019 121 In vie,w of the above, the impugnecl orders and l. 1.12.2Ot6 passed by respondent No2 and respondent No'3 respectively are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.3 to follow Rule 21 of Telanga ra Civil Scn'ices (Classihcation, Conduct & Appeal) Rules, 1991, furnish a copy of the 'lated trnquiry Rerport dated 19.09.2016 and thereafter pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. 13) The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- K.AMMAJI DEPUTY qEGISTRAR SECTIO{N OFFICER To, 1 rhe prinoipar secfgi?l;feoY"[X"o',i3fl1{]l?i,\,S,.,i"31X'"?l.I;i ' I'ii !Ii:l'"","# [ FBiTir ro ";;;; nllTe?aX" ifl;,$,;,t;S"g-1;*Pdisiupvtl-'lu"rrtix?ii]L"a?#3r"'ng'n"'l BM TKS Br{q. 7 E .! f;i (i 10 srP 216 t ) ) ,.9 r T( .i:. (:_ / HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ORDER WP.No.177 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @+"q q\{,f