The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the F'e'ti'ioner: SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Fies londents: AGP FOR SERVICES ll The Court made r:tre lollowing: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA W PET TI 49 o2 ORD ER: Heard Sri N. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behaif of the petitioner and rearned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-fl appearing on behatf of the respondents.

2. The Detitioner ADD ache the ourt see kinq Draver as u nder: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declaring the G.O.Rt.No.3B5 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (VIG.Engg) Department dated 22/tO/2021 issued by the 1st respondent imposing the penalty of Stoppage of One (1) Annual Grade Increment without cumulative effect is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same and pass..."

3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that G.O.Rt.No.3B5 panchaya! Raj and Rural Development (VIG.Engg) Department dated 22/tOl2021 issued by the lst respondent imposing the penalty of Stoppage of One (1) Annual Grade Increment without cumulative effect is illegal, arbitrary .1 2 SN, J and unconstitltonal. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, th( oresent Writ Petition is filed.

4. PE USED_I_r!ElEeoRp. A. The rele v'a 1 l G.O.Rt.No. 3 tDo of th u n rnos. l[.rlcnt-ls extracted he q1n d er: -

4. After r r(amination of the Enquiry Report, rl :opy of Enquiry r., rort has been communicated to Smt. N4' lanaki, the therr l)eputy Executive Engineer, V&QC, Mission Bhagire,th, Karimnagar and presently working as Exeiutive Engineer (FAC), Mission Bhagiratha (Intra) Divisiorr S r::illa as required under Rule 2l (2) of Te angana Civil Sr:rv lr:s (CC&A) Rules, 1991 and she is cirtrcted to submit ri ; representation on the Enquiry Reporl within fifteen ( I ; days from the date of receipt of this l4erno, failing 'ru rr:h it will be construed that she 'las no explanalir l to offer and necessary further action will be taken ag rnst her based on the material available on record, ar per rules in force in the matter vide rt,:ference 7lh reac; hove. The Engineer-in-Chief, Mission Ehe giratha, Hyderaba I has furnished the representation of ttre charged officer vid: reference Bth read above.

5. Goverr hereby:r Annual (lr Smt. I'4. V&QC, N workin 3 i (Intra ) ll (cc&A ) F execut cr n Habital:ict [rrent after careful examination of the matter :er to Impose a penalty of "stoppage ol One(1) :,rJe Increment without cumulative effest' against lanaki, the then Deputy Executive Ergineer, i,;sion Bhagiratha, Karimnagar and Frresently :, Executive Engineer (FAC), Mission 3hagiratha i,rision Sircilla under Telangana Civil iervices -,les, 1991 on the allegations of Irregult,ritles in )F the ..or "CPWS scheme to Chennur ard other :; in Chennur Mandal of Adilabad District. 3 SN, J e o h o

6.2 En G c R Hvderab disextra dhe e u nder: -

6.2 With a view to reduce the designed pressure in the pipe lines due to observation of frequent damages an additional expenditure of Rs.10.00 Lakshs lapproi; naO been incurred which is wasteful towards the construction of 120KL Sump near OHBR, for additional pump Sets and power supply lines. As per procs. No. Budget/RWS&S/V&Qc/5479 l2OOB, Dated: 08.08.2008 of Engineer in Chief, RWS&S, Hyderabad the quality control inspection of materials for the works costing less than Rs 10.00 crore up to Rs 1.00 crore, shall be conducted by Sup^erintending Engineer, RWS&S concerned and DEE, eC, RWS&S concerned district and the SE, RWS&S will issue the test certificate As per above guidelines, suitable disciplinary action may be initiated agJinst Sri T.Srinivasa Reddy the then Superintending Engineer, RWS&S, Adilabad, and Smt M.Janaki the then and present Deputy Executive Engineer, V&eC, RWS&S Karimnagar who are responsible since they witnessed the quitity control inspection at the manufacturer,s worksite and issued pre_ delivery Q.C. certificates for clearance of inferior quality HDPE Pipes. c U. c t o .Note .No.O (34a lv&Et Enoo / 20L6) dated 09 .o6.2 20 n b e n r IA ta n it cea e x r m ti 56. The Vigilance & Enforcement Department Officials of Karimnagar unit has inspected the site on t7/12/2019 and extracted the HDPE pipe samples (5) of 250 mm diameter pressure main. The samples Were got tested at CIpET/Hyd and resu lts as follows: e n r I a t 4 SN, J Sl.No. Chain,l( (' in 'm' 1 2 3 4 5 15 Ii4(, 521i, 631tr 684:i tested Details sa m ple at CIPET PEBOPNBDN 250 PEBOPNSDN 250 PEBOPNBDN 250 PEBOPNBDN 250 PEBOPNBDN 250 Batch No Res rlt 2009050s Sati ;factory 20090102 Satisfactory

20090601. Satisfactory 20090602 Satisfactory 20090602 Satisfactory As seen frorn the above, all five (5) samples tested arrd found satisfied the llydrostatic Static Pressure Test. Hence, Satisfactory. D. The cortJ1! aI affidavit faled bv 3 and in ar:icular para Nos.12 and 13 are ex.tracted Nos. 1 & hereu nd er:..

12. Furtl exa m ir arl Gove rr rn, Stoppag e cumule tiv of irrel;rL I Chenn ur- Adilaba<J PR&RD communi, r(2)lvt3/( e,r, it is humbly submitted that, aftter careful : n of the explanation of the petitior er, the rt have issued orders imposing a oe ralty of :lf One (1) Annual Grade Incremert, without : effect against the petitioner on the allr:gations - ties in execution of the work CPWS Scheme to and other Habitations in Chennur Mt:ndal of ) strict vide G.O.Rt.No.3B5, Dated: 22.10 2021 of '/IG.Engg) Department and isa m,3 was iited to the petitioner vide T/o Endts. No.Vig. l' ennur/ADB/2012-1, Dated : 26. 1 0. 2ll:2 1

13. Fur.t' ,rr, it is humbly submitted that, :ht,: above punishtre 't orders are implemented and the Annual Grade for the year 2022, i.e., 01.03.2022 vvas with Increrr€rn. held wil.h lrt cumulative effect as per Governmert orders and tar same was released vide F ro,:eeding. No.A1lEs ttL3/AGI|2022-23, dated: 27.03.2(t23 of 5 SN, J Executive Engineer MB Intra Division Siddipet/ with monetary benefit from OL.O3.ZO23. Therefore, the impugned orders are passed after following due procedure in accordance with Rule. DI US ON D CL ON

5. Learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in case alleging that the petitioner had allowed to utilize the inferior quatity of HDPE pipes duly issuing pre-detivery quatity control certificate for clearance of inferior quality HDpE pipes, on the said allegations charge sheet, dated 13.12.2O12 framing two specific charge sheets against the petitioner had been issued to the petitioner, enquiry report, dated 06.6.2012 of the Chief Engineer, Vig&eC, RWS&S, Hyderabad indicated initiation of disciplinary action against the petitioner herein holding the petitioner and few others responsible alleging that the petitioner and few others had witnessed the euality control inspection at the manufacturer's worksite and issued pre_delivery e.C. certificates for clearance of inferior quality HDpE pipes. 6 SN, J 6 Lera'ned counsel aDD arino on behalf of the oetitioner -p r. b-mits that the initial enquirv reoort. is dated 06.06.2012 lnd, the charqe me mo s dated :13,12.2ot2 and the 'Virrilance Enquirv conducted bv the 'Viqilance Department subsequently in resDect of the subiect issue in its enquir',' reDort, dated 09.O6.2020 soecifacally at Dara No.55 hel GI lhat all the '5' samples tested and found satisfactor_-r1-End the Hvdrostatic Static Pressr[e___ICSt indicated 1lI'e results in favour of the petitioner and others.

7. l-e arned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner suhmits that by virtue of the impugned orders of the 1"t r, lspondent, dated 22.1O.2O2L, the p,etitioner had been d,lprived of his promotion and junrior to the petitioner h rd been considered and promoted. Learned counsel aprp -'aring on behalf of the petitioner further submits that though, no mandatory loss had been incurred by the petiti,lner as stated in the counter affidavit at para No.13 yell in view of the impugned proceedings, the petitioner's; :ase for promotion had been totall'y ignored, Learned cor nsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner t 7 SN, J further submits that in view of the enquiry report of the Vigiiance Department, dated 09.06.2020 of the Vigilance Department being in favour of the petitioner, the impugned proceedings of the 1"t respondent, dated 22.tO.2O21 has to be set-aside, the Writ petition has to be allowed as prayed for. 8, Learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_Il appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in particular para Nos.12 & 13 (referred to and extracted above) submits that the initial enquiry report, dated 06.06.2012 indicated initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and few others and in view of the fact that the petitioner had not incurred any mandatory loss and since the punishment orders had been implemented and the annual grade increments for the year ZO22 i.e., O1-.O}.2OZ2 was withheld without cumulative effect as per government orders and the same was however released vide proceedings, 27'.03.2023 of the Executive Engineer,MB Intra Division, Siddipet with monetary benefits w.e.f. 8 SN. ,I O1.O3.2O23, the subject issue warrants no interference of this Court. a rd the Writ Petition needs to be disnnissed.

9. A bart: >erusal of the record indicates thall the initial enquiry reprrrt, dated O6.06.2O12 and the charge memo issued against the petitioner, dated L3.12.2OL2. indicated initiation of Jisciplinary action against the petitioner and few others, rut the subsequent enquiry condur:ttld by the Vagalance l)')partment on 09.O6.202O pertaininE to the subject issue indicated the report, dated 09.O6.202O in favour of tte petitioner and few others and further the same indica':es that the allegations leveled in tlxe charge memo, dart,:d L3.L2.2OL2 against the petitioner are incorrect al d in view of the fact that the im ouqned proceeding€ p-f the 1"t responde not refer tlr : Departmelt _dated O9.O6.202O either in the refenence nor in the dis!:u 5-sion, nor there is a .2q2ld-gcs lYed--a!-!Xg .Viqilance conclusio t o- imoose oenaltv of stoopaqe of-er! e annua! qrade incre nent wit out cumulative effect ao ainst the petitioner_ h erein simolv statinq that the same isbeinq imoosed ,:1n the oetitioner in view of the allggations of 9 SNJ irreg u la rities, rn execution of the CPWS Scheme to Chennur and other habitations in Chennur Mandal, Adilabad District, hence, this Court opines that the order impugned is without any application of _ mind, without conducting any proper enquiry under the rules and without recording any prima-facie opinion or finding based on reasons, without application of mind erroneously holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct and imposing the punishment on the basis of altegations teveled against the petitioner without even referring to the subsequent vigilance enquiry report, dated 09.O6.2O2O is totaily illegal and arbitrary exercise of power by the l"t respondent, Therefore, this Court opines that petitioner is entitted for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ petition.

10. Taki nq into nsid ration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_fl appearing on behalf of the rEspondents. .,aarxi&au**.* 10 SN, J c) The c lntents of the impugned pror:eedings, G.O.Rt.No.3lri5, dated 22.LO.2O2L of the 1't respondent (referred to and extracted above) d) The corrt.lnts of the enquiry report, dated O6.O6.2012 of the Cl'ief Engineer, VIG&QC, RWS&S, Hyderabad (referred to and extracted above) e) The contents of U.O.Note. ll( .02(348/V&E / Engg / 2OL6), dated 09.06'2O2O the Enquiry report conducted hy the General Administration (Vigilance and Enforcemen:) Department (referred to and extracted above) f) The counr:er affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) g) The fac't r:hat the order impugned by the 1"t respondent, dated 22.Ltt,2O2L is without assigning any reasons and without ti, king into consideration the sttbsequent vigilance ,r'e port, dated O9.06.2O2O which is in favour of the petitio n lr herein. h) The f:r< t as borne on record that the charqe memo, dated 13.:1: ,2OL2 and the impugned order is p;rssed on 22.1,0.2021 by the 1"t respondent only because l i I 1l SN, J disciplinary action was proposed in the enquiry report of the Chief Engineer, VIG&eC, RWS&S, Hyderabad, dated 06.06.2(J12, which is in fact contrary to the findings of the Vigilance enquiry conducted in the year 2O2O and contrary to the findings in the Vigilance report, dated 09.O6.2020 which are in fact in favour of the petitioner herein, T e P e s o Ann AI e order as to co tion ts ural D elo men 10. 2Li G t.N .38 V G.E h 1"t d 2 e m twi ho o e fOn e H h e 1 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand clo ,,TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD.IS DE PUTY REGI L RAR SECTION FFICER To, lff gt*$tggmtemg*'1"r"'lt";':" TJ BS w HIGH COUR CG TODAY DATED:3010,4'2025 ORDER WP.No.4449 of 2023 1 '11;G tAr1: )s J o 10 { m25 ,i[j .o -t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CCiSTS q cdqt'fb &,