Prabhakar Pagidipalli v. 1. The Principal secretary

3. Sri Bala Krishna Reddy, The lnquiry Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, And Sub-Divisional Magistrate -Khammam District-T.S.

4. The Mandal Tahsildar, Appointing Authority) Yerrupalem Mandal, T.S. 5. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Madhira, Khammam District- T.S' 6. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Govemment of Telangana, Khammam District, Khammam-T.S. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue'any appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS that this Honourable Court may be pleased direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the services and set aside the major penalty order for dismissed from services issued by the 1St respondent impugned order No.A3/38512013 Dt.28l0'll2O15 in terms of Rule (X) of APCS (CC and A) Rules, '1991 On the strength of this Honourable High Court vide W.P. No.6345/2019 and acquittal orders passed in C.C. No.534/2015 on the file of the Honourable Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira, on merits not on ground of lack of evidence or ex-parte evidence or bepe fit of doubt only on Honourable Orders. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 1st respondent to dispose the representation Dt. 0710112023 since the fresh revision application of the major penalty order is pending and consequentially quash the major penalty order issued by the 1st respondent impugned order No. 43/385t2013 Dt. 28tO1t2015 in terms of Rule (X) of APCS (CC and A) Rules, 1991 in the light of C.C. No.534/2015 on the file of the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class at MadhiraT acquitted the petitioner on merits not on a ground of benefit of doubt or lack of evidence only Honourable Court order. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/S.SHAH AND CO LAW EXPERTS Counsel for the Respondents No.1to6 : ASST. GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.7 : The Court made the following: ORDER a :J HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO.3612 OF 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri B. Raiesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6. 2 The Det ioner aooroache the Court seekino oraver asu der: "...to issue any appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Wflt of MANDAMUS that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the services and set aside the major penalty order for dismissed from services issued by the 1't respondent impugned order No.A31385/2013 DI.28/OU2O15 in terms of Rule (X) of APCS (CC and A) Rules, 1991 on the strength of this Honourable High Court vide W.P. No.6345/2019 and acquittal orders passed in C.C. No.534/2015 on the file of the Honourable Junior Civil Judge cum ludicial Magistrate of First Class at Madhira, on merits not on ground of lack of evidence or ex-parte evidence or benefit of doubt only on Honourable Orders and pass..." .- \ ".f!iF"! \ 2 SN, J w_3612_2023

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as oer the averments made in the affidavit filed bv the oetitioner in suDDort of the Dresent rit oetition is as under The petitioner was appointed as village Revenue Officer on

20.04.1995 by the respondent No.3 under compassionate grounds. The petitioner was charged with misappropriation of input subsidy funds granted to the villagers of Bheemavaram in Yerrupalem Mandal and the petitioner was awarded with major penalty vide order dated 28.01.2015 by the respondent No.1 and petitioner was dismissed from the services. On an earlier occasion the petitioner filed W.P. No. 6345 of 2019 challenging the order dated 28.01.2025. As per the orders of this Court, the petitioner filed revision petition but no action had been taken by the 1't respondent. Aggrieved by. the impugned order No.43/385/2013, dated 28.01.2015 issued by the respondent No.1 the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD:-

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent issued procepings imposing a major penalty of 1 3 SN, J wp]612 2023 dismissal from service against the petitioner vide letter No.A3l38 5/20L3 dated 28.01.2015 in terms of terms of Rule (X) of APCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 referring to the enquiry report submitted against the petitioner holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against the petitioner on the alleged ground that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in discharge of petitioner's duties as Village Revenue Officer of Bhemavaram Village, Yerrupalem Mandal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision against the impugned dismissal order No.A3l385/20L3 dated 28.01.2015 before the 1't respondent herein and though the said revision petition had been preferred by the petitioner way back on 07.0L.2023, the 1't respondent had not considered the revision petition preferred by the petitioner to revise the penatty of dismissal from services No.A3/38 5l2OL3 dated 28.01.2015 imposed against the petitioner which is in fact major penalty and to set-aside the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the petitioner on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing W.P. No.6345 of 20L9 challenging the proceedings dated 4 n SN, J wP-;J6t2]023

28.01.2015 issued to the petitioner by the 1't respondent dismissing the petitioner from service as Village Revenue Officer (VRO) of Bheemavaram Village, Yerrupalem Mandal, Khammam District and also subsequent order confirming the said major penalty by the 2nd respondent thereund er vide proceeding dated

22.09.2018 as illegal and arbitrary, and the said W.P. No.6345 of 20Lg was disposed of vide orders of this Court dated

27.03.20L9 directing the petitioner to file a fresh revision petition in accordance with Rule 40 of CCA Rules within period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon such revision being preferred, the 1tt respondent thereunder shall consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law in another eight (B) weeks thereafter but, however in view of the fact that the said orders had not been implemented as on date, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present W.P. No.3612 of 2023, again. *

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that without going into the nie::its of the present case the limited relief which the petitioner seeks in the present writ petition is a direction to the 1't respondent to dispose of the revision preferred by the petitioner dated 07.oL.2oz3 before the 7 .t 5 SN, J wp_3612_2023 1't respondent herein as directed by this court vicre orders dated 27.03.20t9 passed in W.p.No.63 45 of 2OLg in accordance to law, within a reasonable period.

7. The learned Assistant Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Takino into consideration (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the 8 case, (b) The submissions made by the tearned counset appearing on beharf of the petitioner and the tearned Assistant Government pteader appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The order of this Court dated 27.03.2019 passed in W.p. No.634S of 2Ol9 in favour of the petitioner herein, (rl) The fact that the petitioner in compliance to the directions of this Court dated 27.O3.2O1g issued in favour of petitioner in W.p. No.6345 of 2Ol9 preferred a detailed revision in accordance to Rute 4O of CCA Rules dated ( i I 6 SN, J w:3612 2023 r) { o7.ol.2o23beforethe1'trespondenthereinandthel't respondent however, had not considered the same as on date. The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1't and decide the dated 07 -OL,2O23 respondent to representation/Revision Petition adiudicate preferredbythepetitionerherein,seekingsettingaside the major penalty imposed upon the petitioner vide Lr.No.Rc.No.A3/385l2ot3dated28.01.2015issuedbythe 2nd respondent to the petitioner' as directed by this Court vide orders dated 27.Ci3.2019 passed in w'P' No'6345 of 2o:l;g,inaccordancetolaw,inconformitywithprinciples ofnaturaljusticebygivingreasonablenoticeandan opportunity of personal lrearing to- all concerned and pass on merits appropriatb reasoned speaking orders pertaining to the revision petition dated preferred by the petitioner before the 1't aggrieved against the by the znd No.A3/3 8i5l2OL3 dated 28'01'2015' issued respondent, which in fact is a major penalty' within a periodofsix(06)weeksfromthedateofreceiptofthe proceedings respondent

07.OL.2023 imPugned r'/ a 7 SN, J wp 3612 2023 copy of the order and duly communicate the decision on thesubjectissuetothepetitionerherein.Thereshallbe no order as to costs' Misceganeous petitions, if dfly, pending in this writ Petition' shall stand closed 'D/-AHMEo aaJuLLAH KHAN ISTANT REGISTRAR To,

1. The PrinciPal //TRUE COPY// OFFICER of Revenue Secretariat, BRKR

2. The District Collector, (Disciplinary and Appellate Authority) District Magistrate- Khammam District -T.S.

3. The lnquiry Officer and Revenue Divisional Officel Ana Suit-Divisional Magistrate -Khammam District-T.S. -Sri Bala Krishna Reddy,

4. The MandalTahsildar, Appointing Authority) Yenupalem Mandal, T'S' 5. The Assistant Director of Agriculture, Madhira, Khammam District- T'S. 6. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Government of Telangana, Khammam District, Khammam-T.S.

7. One CC to M/S.SHAH AND CO LAW EXPERTS, Advocate. [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High court for the state of Telangana. + IOUrI

9. Two CD CoPies. BSK BS T@ HIGH COURT DATED i2310912025 CC TODAY THE S 2 I ,ll ii ?0?[ f (J ,L,{ t-l E WP.No.361 2 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a IL KS 2i1 t '[..