The High Court · 2025

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 to direct the Respondents to suspend the operation of the impugned show cause notice in proceedings RC No. A/1660/2008, dl. 24togt2O1B, issued by the l't Respondent lA NO: 2 OF 2020 Between:

1. The District Collector (BCW) , Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2. he Director of BC Welfare, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, BC Welfare Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad - 5OO O22. ..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS AND A. Laxminarayana, S/o. Ramachandran, Aged about 57 years, working as HWO Gr-ll, Govt., BC lntegrated Boys Hostel, Manakonduru, Karimnagar District. Rl/o. 8-8, PO Manakonduru, Warangal Road, Karimnagar. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section '15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Vacate the interim orders dated:1110212020 made in lA.No.1/2020 in WP.No.279112020 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. POODATTU AMARENDER Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES lll The Court made the following: ORDER ORDER WRIT PETI?ION NO. 279t oF 2020 This Writ Petition, uncler Article 226 of the Constitution of India is hled seeking the follow,ing relief: "_.. to call for the records relaling to the impuBned show cause nolice in proceedings RC No.A/1660 l2OOa, dt:24.Og.2OtB, issued by the t"r Respondent and set aside the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 1 6 of the constitution of India and consequently, direct Lhe llespondcnts to drop the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and regularize thc suspension period as on duty period, wrth all service ar-td monctz y benefits and to pass aly such order. .. ." 2) IJeard Sri P. Amarcnder, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government pleader for Scrvices-lll for respondents. 3) Lcarned counsel for the petitioner has submittecl that while the pctltroner \vas working as Hostel Welfare Officer, Grade_ll, he was placed under suspension on 03.11.2O0g ard reinstated into service on 23.o4.2010 on the allegation that he issued four fraucrulent salary certificates ancl accorrlingly, an Article of Charge dated O2.Ol.2O1g was issued to the ltetitioner alleging that when he was functioning as Assistant Welfare Oflficer has issued four bogus salary ccrtificates to SyndicaLe Bank, Karimnagar branch, in favour of four ) ' 1 0 persons who are not working at Government BCBH' Karimnagar' '000 / - to each and and arranged for drawl of personal ioan of Rs 1 also issued undertaking letter to deduct the loan instalments from their monthl-y salaries' Further' the petitioner has submitted his explalation on 04.01.2009 denYing the charges and requesting to Dissatislted u'ith the said drop further action against the petitroner' explalation, an Enquiry Offrcer was appointed and the Enqutry' officerhasconductedtheenquiryandsubmittedareportor-t lg.O7 .2O2O holding that there is no relation between the petltloner and the persons who have taken personal loans from Syndicate bank and that the signatures on the certihcates and the undertakings are different from the signatures on the statement given by the petitioner and also opined to send the signatures to forensic 1ab for veriltcatron ol the originality of the signatures' As per the said report' the District BC Development Offrcer' Karimnagar' has obtained the petitioner and sent to the Forensic department for signatures of the the Foiensic Lab has also not reported that the testing and even signatures available on the salary certificates and undertaking le[ters are that of the Petitloner As such, the allegations made against the petitioner are faise and baseless Learned counsel has further 7 J submitted that in connection with the said issue, a criminai case was also registered against the petitioner vide crime No.29g/200g of pS Karimnagar Town for the offence punishable under Sectio n 42o of Inclian penal Code on 04.11.200g and after filing of charge sheet the case was numbered as C.C. No.5l6 of 2010 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Karimnagar, alld the said case was ended in acquittai vide judgment dated 14.09.2076. Learned counsel has contended that in view of said acquittal, the respondents ought to have dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as the charges in the criminal case and departmental proceedings are one and same. But, without doing so, a show cause notice dated 24.09.2019 was issued to the petitioner proposing to impose a major penalty of reduction to iower timescale of pay and to take further action against the petitioner while inviting his representation, to which, the petitioner has submitted his representation on 05.10.201g denying the allegations and requesting to drop Lhe proceedings ald also to regularize the suspension period. Learned counsel has contencled that the impugned show cause noticc dated 24.O9.2019 is illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind and contrary to the Rules. Learned counsel has a-lso : --l .l 4 contended that respondent No.1 has not even referred to the report of the Enquin, Offrcer in the impugned shorT' cause notice though the report is in favour of the petitioner and disagreement notice was also not issued to the petitioner as required under law' It is further contended that indication of punishment in the show cause nolice b-v respondent No.1 is nothing but post decisional hearing and denial of principles of natr-rral justice and the same is contrary to the lau' laid down by the Honble Apex Court in H'L' Trehon u' I/nion oJ Indial and also Siemens Ltd. u. State of Maharashtra2 ' Thereibre' the learned counsel prayed this Court to allow the writ petition ald issue suitable direction to the respondents Reliance has also been placed on the judgment dated O3.04.2O23 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.314 of 2023 ' 4\ Per contra, the learned Government'Pleader for Seruices lll has stated that as the explalation submitted by the petitioner to thc Article of Charges was not satisfactory, an enquiry under Rule 2O (1) of the AP (CC&A) Rules, 199 1, was ordered and Revenue Divisional Ofhcer, Karimnagar, was appointed as Enquiry Ofhcer' After recording the depositions, the Enquiry Officer has reported that L (19a9) 1 SCC 764 ], 2006 (121 SCC 33 5 the re is no relation between the petitioner and the persons who took personal loans lrom Syndicate Bank, Karimnagar Branch, and also stated that the signature on the 1etters of undertaking are different from the signatures on the statements given by the petitioner. Therefore, the trnquiry Officer has suggested to send the signatures to F orensic Department, Hyderabad, for testing. As per the report of the trnquiry Officer, the District BC Development Ofhcer, Karimnagar, has obtained the signatures of the petitioner ard sent to Forensic Department, Hyderabad, for testing. However, the Director, Forensic Departmenr, Hyderabad, vide letter No.DOC/Gen /2012/458. Dated 27 .06.2O12, has returned the documents with certain objections. But, as the Enquiry ofrrcer has not returned the original documents along with trnquiry Report, the objections taken by the Forensic Department were not complied ,r,ith. It is further submitted that in connection with said issue, criminal prosecution has also been Iaunched against the petitioner vide c.c. No.5I6 0f 20 10 0n the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar, for the offence under Section 42O of Indian penal Code. However, the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case ulde judgment dated 14.09.2016. Learned Government pleader has contended that 6 as the respondents were felt that undoubtedly the petitioner u'as involved in the case, the District collector uide Rc.No.A l1660l2OlB, dated 24.09.20 18, has orderecl for issuance of a shou'cause notice to the petitioner as to r'r'hy the major penalty of reduction in rank should not be enforced for misusing his ofhcial position and bringing disrepute to Government for his unethical conduct' for which' the petitioner has submitted his explalation on 05' 11'2O 18 denying the allegations. Considering the said explanation, the District Collector has directed the concerned to once again remind the Forensic Laboratory to furnish the report and the reminder letter dated 2O.O5.2OL} was acldressed to the Forensic Science Laboratory' ln reply, the Forensic Science Laboratory addressed a ietter dated 05.07.20 19 seeking to furnish original salary certihcates for comparison of signatures. However,. as the required salary certihcates u'ere not available in the office or the Bank' no further action was terken against the petitioner' Therefore' the learned Government Pleader has contended that without u'aiting for further orders pursuant to Lhe impugned show cause notice' the petitioner has approacl-red this Court and therefore the writ petition is premature and liable to be dismissed' Reliance has been placed on 1 1) Sri Krishna Exim LLp u, (Jnion of Ind.ias; 2) Bihar State Housing Board u. Ramesh Kumar Singha; 3) Mallo.di Dntgs and. phq.rmq. Ltd, a. (Jnion oJ Ind.ias; 4l State o;f (J.p. u, Anil Kumql Rq.mesh Chandra Glass Worksa 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respectlve counsel and perused the material on record. 6) A perusal of the material on record discloses that while the petltroner w,as working as Hostel Welfare offrcer, Grade-ll, a Charge Memo vide Rc.No.A/ t66O /2008 dared Nil. t2.2O0B (signed O2.Ol.2OO9) u,as issued to the petitioner framing the following charge: "That thc sa,rcl Sri A.I-a_xrninarayana Hostel Wellare Officer, Gr_ll Karimnzrgar while functioning as Hostel Welfare Officer has issued (4) lraudulent & Bogus salaqz certihcates to SJmdicate Bark Br, Karimnagar in favour of the followrng persons who are not working at Govt. BCBH, Karimnagar and arranged for drawr of personal loan @ for Rs.1,10,o00/_ to cach totalling for Rs.3,30,ooo/ ana also issued uirdertaking letter to deduct the loan installments from their monthly sa_laries. l) N.S?rmnarah S/o. Odely, Attendcr in Govt., BCBH, Karimr.rgar 2) U Samson S/o Ratnaiah, Attender at Govt., BCBH, Karirrrnagar, 3l 4) MD Zakeer S/o Kahaja Ghousuddrn, Attender Govt., BCBH, Karimnagar Smt. N. Chandrakala D/o Narsaiai, Attender Govt., BCBH, Ka_rimnagar.,, I 202.1 SCC Oot_Lnc.l.S 4002 r (l99ar) I SCC 327 5 AIR 2004 sc 4905 o (2005) I r scc .+s 1 8 .l To the said charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 04.O 1.2009 denying the charge' However' an enquir5' was ordered and the Enquiry ofhcer has conducted the enquiry and submitted his report holding as under: ",.. On pellsal o[ abovc statements iL is observed that there is no relation betwee n the persons namely 1- N Sammaiah' 2 U'Samson' 3-Md.Zakeer and 4.N Chandrakala who were taken pcrsonal loan from Syndicate Bank and Sri A l-ilxminerayala' HWO' Gr-ll' Govt BCBH' Karimnagar. Sri A Laxminarayana has also stated that he was not issued any fraudulenl and bogus salary certihcates and undertaking letters to the above (4) loances But Lhe signatures on thc certihcates arld on undertakings are diftertng from thc signature on the statement given by him ar-rd slight changes arc therc' In this regarcl to clarify the originality o[ the srgnature brought the record having the signatures of Sri A Laxminarayana' HWO' from the DeparLment in which hc rvorkcd clr-tring such period- While submitting herewith the above record along with the recorded statements it is to submit that to dccide the originalitl'of signatures both may be sent to the forensic lab for taking the turther action " 7\ Further, as the Enquiry Officer has held that the signatures on the certihcates ar-rd on undertaking letters are different from the signatures on the statements given by the petitioner' the respondents have sent the signatures obtained lrom the petitioner to the Forensic Departmcnt, Hyderabad' for testing' But' even before 9 receipt of the report from the Forensic Lab, the impugned show cause no tice dated 24 .Og .2O lg was issued to the petitioner proposing Lo impose the major penalty of reduction to lower time scale pay and asking to submit his explanation. Therefore, by lssulng the impugned show cause notice, the respondents have resorted Lo post decisional hearing, which is unsustainable B) As regards posL-clecisional hearing, the Hon,ble Supreme Court in K.I. Shephard u. (Jnion qJ IndiaT nas held as under: ''Wc ma_\. nou. point out that the learned Single Judge for the Kerala High Court hatd proposed a post-amalgamation hearing to meet the situation bnt rha t has been vacatecl by the Division Bench. For the rcasons we havc indicated, there is no justification to think of a post_ decisional hearing On the other hand the normal rule should apply. It w-as also corltcncled on behalf of the respondents that the excluded emplo_vccs could not reprcsent and their case could be examined. We do noL rhink that would meet the ends ofjustice. They have already been thrown out o[ emplol.rnent and having been deprived of riverihood they must be facing serious difficulties. There is no justihcation to throw them oul of empk)t.ment and thr:n given them an opportunity of representation when the l-equirement is that they should have the opportunrty referred to above as a concliLion precedent to action. It is common expenence that once a decrsion has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representaLton may not really 1.reld any fruitful purpose.,r 7 (1987) .1 SCC 43 I IO I ...i 9) Reiying on the above decision, the Hon'bie Supreme Court in its subsequent d.ecision in H.L. Trehan's cose (reJerred supra) ]r1as held as under: "i1. ....... tt is now a well established pnncrple of law lhat lhere can be no deprivation or curtailment ol any extsting right' adYantage or bcneht enjoyed by a government servant \\'ithout compiying &ith the rrrles of natura-l justice by giving the go\crnment servant concerned an opportunity of being hcard Any arbitrary or rvhimsical exercise of power prejudicially affecting the existing condilions of service of a government servant will offend against the provision of Article 14 of thc Constitution' Admittedly, Lhe employees of CORIL \r'ere not grYen arl opportunity of hearing or rcpresentir-rg their case bcforc the impugned circular r,"'as issued by the Boald of Directors 'lhe rmpugncd circular cannot' therefore' be sustained as it offends against the rules o[ natural justice'

72. ....... In our opinion, the post'dccisional opportunity of hearing doesnotsullservetherulesofnaturaljusttce.Theauthoritywho embarks uPon a post-decisional hearing will naturally proceed u'ith a and there is harcll1' anv chance of getting a proper closed rnind of the representatlon at such a post-decisional consideration opportunitY., 13. The view that has becn taken by this Court in thc above observation is that once a decision has been [akcn' thcre is a tendency to uphold it and a representation maj' not vield any lruitful purpose Thus' even if any haring was Siven to the emploS'ces of CORIL aJter the issuarcc of the impugned circular, that would not be aJ1)'. compliance with the rules of natural justice or avoid the mischief of arbitrariness as contemplated by Articlel4oltheConstitulion.ThcHiqhCoUrl.in.ruropinion.was perfectly justihed in quashing the impugncd circular'" 'i I I I I 10) Further. in Siemen,s case (referred. supra), the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held as under: "9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionarJr jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petitlon questioning a notice to show cause unless the samc inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held bv this Court in some decisions ......, but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle viz., when a notice is issued wrth premeditation, a llrit petition would not be marntainable. In such ar-r event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear tJle matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purposc... It is cviderrt in lhe instant case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. Ir cxpricitly sard so both in the counter_arfidavit as a.lso in its purported shorv-cause nohce. l0 11. A barc pcrus:rl of the order impugned before the High Court as also the statements made before us in the counter affidavit frled by the respondents, we are satisfled that the statutory authority has a_lready applied its mincl ar-rd has fbrmed ar-r opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of the appeltant. If in passing the order the respondent has already delermined the liability of the appellant and the only question which remains for its con siclcration is quantification thereof, the same does noL remain in rhe realm of a show_cause notice.,, 11) Similarly, in Writ Appeal No.3t4 of 2023 vide judgment dated 03.O4.2023, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: "6. This Court, having considercd the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petiLion in favour of the l"r respondent, as admittedly, the disciplinary authority has not issued ar_ry decent note and very strangcly, the disciplinary authority has come to conclusion in the ( t7 ShowCauseNoticeitselftoimposeapunishmentofstoppageofone increment with cumulative effect, which wouid mean that the disciplinary authority has prejudged the issuc and came to a conclusiorr to impose a punishment even before the 1'' respondent sttbmiLs an explanation' Therefore, the learned Single Judge was.lustihcd in allourng Lhe writ petition in favour of the 1* respondent and vcry rightlv directed the appellar-rts to consider the case of the 1' respondent for promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer on par wlth the 2nd rcspondent '." l2l Admittedly, in the instant case, though in the enquirv' the charges against the petitioner were not proved' the Disciplinary Authority has not issued any decent note as mandated under Ruie 21 of the CCA Rules and has come to a conclusion in the show cause notice itself to impose the punishment of reduction to lower timescale of pay which would mean that the Discipiinary Authority has pre-judged the issue and come to the conclusiol-r to impose the punishment upon the petitioner even before submission his explanation. 13) Coming to the judgments relied by the learned Government Pleader, in vie\^, of the peculiar facts and circumstallces of the case on hand, the said decisions are distinguishable on facts not applicable to the Present case 7 ) 14) For the afore-mentioncd reason s and in view of the settled propositions of Iaw, referred supra, the impugned show cause notice dated 24.09.2018 is unsustainable under the law and therefore liable to be set aside i 5) Accordingly, the impugned show cause notice vide Rc.No.A/ 1660 I 2OO8, dated 24.O9.2078, 1S set aside and the writ petition is allowecl with all consequential benefits. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR se$tft-orrrcen T.S.,500 022.

1. The District Collector (BCW) , Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 2- he Director of BC Welfare, Telangana State, Hyderabad. 3. Th_e Principal Secretary, BC Welfare Department,secretariat, Hyderabad - 4. One CC to SRl. POODATTU Al",lAREt''lDER, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES lll ,High Court for the State of Telangana 6.'Two CD Copies at Hyderabad [OUT] OBM GJP I I / i t. )....- _. . i*i ,IJ 22 ,lUE M 1,I;! '" 'J D F ,/r' 7r' HIGH COURT DATED:1910G12025 ORDER WP.No.2791 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {