The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Rangarajula Rajasekhar Rao, learned counse! appearing on behatf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the resPondent No.2. 2 T a d e Draver as under: "...to issue a Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, to declare the imPugned proceedings of the 1't Respondent bearing No.All44Bl2Ol7, dated 28/12/2020 and consequential order of the 2nd Respondent in appeal bearing procgs.No.VS.lll(2)/46/2021, dated 78/l2l2o2t as illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutiona I and void being contrary to the CCA Rules and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion as Tahsildar with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 2 SN,J wt _1176 2022

3. Tl- (r , 3se of the petitioner, petition€rr tn brief, i_: that the /,,as initially appointed as Junior Assistant on compassirtr ;rle grounds in the year 1998 and wa; Iromoted to Senio-A;,:istant in the year 2004 and was also trromoted to Narb )e:.rty Tahsildar in the year 2013. Tlre petitioner passed a ll departmental tests required for l..ahsildar promotiol. -r-le petitioner,s name was included in the 2015_ 2016 pane I 'rr Tahsirdar promotion. whire the rn.tt(,)r stood thus, the te tioner was placed under suspension i1 the. year 2077 due r, allegations of involvement in ricer di,,rersion. Despite beir:; reinstated, the petitioner faced d sciplinary proceed inr;:; ,ide No.A1l448/2017 dated 28.12.2020 with a ::itppage oF one annual grade in cre.n r,rnt. In pursua nce :c t:he said proceedings, the petitioner f Ied an appeal befrre :he respondent No.2, however, the sante was rejected vi,J: : rocs.No .VS.ilI(2)/46/202L dated tB.t2 2027. Aggrieved :y, lhe same, the petitioner filed the present writ penalty o= petition. PERUSED'r_Ht;. RECo RD:

4. The __rr: feva nt proceedinqsl_ .. o o e e ondent tm lru sned No. _ vide ai' Pro No. 44 2 7 titi ner her ln 3 e SN,J wp _71L6-2O22

28. 2.20 e e "In view of the above facts and circumstances I have not found any negligence in discha eofhi s leqitimate duties and a lso not found anv thinqa out collusion with he I held not Drov ed. t c n r Ther hat heT rRe r (cs)h asc olludedw ith taqe.II Tah si lda r inte lon tor nd K. V nk an mo nef .In iew ft a is not proved. m it r ve he R m lafi h After careful examination, the findings of the enquiry officer with reference to the explanation submitted by the charged officer' it is noticed that, the enquiry has ndt touched the depth gross route of the illegal storage of PDS rice in un-authorized point and not ceased out the responsibility of the charged officer' Hence' the Disciplinary Authority proposed to impose a penalty with holding (01) Annual Grade Increment of pay with cumulative effect against the charged officer. 4 SN,J Np..7tL6_2022 b n u s e ati n n ti e S o u ca llinrr th ex la a f he ha ffi er d ry re port ,a nd r e 5ld of an u (:o Ttm n icati nq the en r ith h tdi rnllJlLa tion DUn ts trmen r rn.€[e]I rent with effect v ide refelg 1 1 th ea The Charged Off cer has su rrnitted his explanation and request3d to drop ti :, further action vide reference 11:h rcad cumul ative OV

. -, view of the above, in exercise of jhe powers :onferred by Rule 9 (vi) of T.S.C.S (CC8,A), Rules, q91, I hereby ordered for imposing a penalt'/ h,ith holding one increment of pav w th cumul;rt !'e effect against Sri T.Surender Rerdcry, former rlaib Tahsildar (CS), O/o. District Ci,yil Suppl ers (lfficer, Nalgonda and now workinq as Naib --al sildar, Neredugommu Mandal of NalrSonrla Distric t. T : Tahsildar, Neredugbmmu Mancial is reque!;te i lo make necessary entries in the servi< e of the irr i,,idual under proper acknowledgement n this m,r:t :" under intimation to this office.,.

5. The __r el VA to proceedinqs _. Proc.No.VS=f i,I t o (2) t46t2O2L. dated ,,8.!2.2!L reso on ent No.2 It.t 5 SN,I wp _7 7L6 _2022 hereunder: etitione d "Further, it is observed that, the appellant failed to make any efforts to control the illegal movement and storage of Essential Commodities at unauthorized locations under his control' He reacted only when a team from District Supply Office, Nalgonda conducted an inspection on 30th & 31 December,2OL6 and found illegal stowing of 400 qtls of PDS Rice in two different unauthorized locations at Deverkonda and Gundlapalli (Dindi) Mandals of Nalgonda District. It is the defacto responsibility of appellant to ensure fair and equal distribution of Essential Commodities to all the card holders under his control. The appellant cannot absolve himself from his prime responsibilities. In view of the above facts and circumstances and after careful examination of the record, it is observed that prima-facie the appellant called to perform his legitimate duties and acted negligently in monitoring the movement of Essential Commodities resulting which illegal stowage of 400 Qtls., of Public Distribution System Rice were found' The Collector, Nalgonda has rightly held the appellant responsible for his gross negligence in performing his legitimate duties' x 6 5N,J wp-71-76 2022 j do not find any merits in regards :o the conten ir:tn of the appellant to interfere wir h the orders :f' the Collector, Nalgonda passed in File No. Al/azt5/,1017, Dt. 28.12.2020. The order of the Cr:llectr, Nalgonda dt. 28.12.2020 is uplreld holdirq the quantum of punishment award,:d as justif i,-.( :tnd accordingly the appeal is dismiss:d ,,

6. Thc__r I t o ion of t he sh notice on e o Proc. N .A1 44a o1 d te o4 1 o2 d ss d to the oetitionel_f 9_. r ex ra ed her un er: " t fter ca refu I examination of the enqu ry repor:, I is noticed that, the explanation rf the charged officer is not convincing to trte irregulilr ties. The enquiry officer has not tou,:hr:d the dr:1;t , gross route of the illegal storaqe cf pDS rice ir u r.authorized point and not ceased out ilre respon:;ii lity of the charged otficer. Hen ce t Disciplirra. A th r! of sto DDA qe of nt withc mu ative ffe ta q r tm o e a (01 Ann ual Gr d e st th e :to oenalqL f ncreif6 e n o d R ) sIa_rged o tc r. rs appe l d dhe ouroos_e, l c w f th for m u tc tio !1 7 7 5N,J wp_7 7t6_2022 7 The ou nter affidavit has been filed on beha lf of soondent No.1 and in DA icula r, Dara oraoh No.4 of the said cou nter is extracted hereun der:

4. In reply to Para-4, it is submitted that, wlth reference to the proposals of the Collector (CS), Nalgonda in Lr.No.CS3/2045/2016, Dt' 2L.OL.\OL7 , the Respondent No.1 has initiated Departmental Proceedings against the writ petitioner and placed under suspension vide Proc.No.Al/448/20L7, dt. 27.07.2017 and article of charges issued for exhibiting negligence in legitimate duties vide discharging his Proc.No.All44812017, dt. 23.04.2017. On submission of the explanation by the Charged Officer and deny of charges, the Respondent No'1 has appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Miryalguda and the District Manager (Civil Supplies). TSCSC Ltd., Nalgonda as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer respectively vide Proc.No.All448/20L7. D1. 25.05.2017. Further, it is submitted that, the suspension on the delinquent officer/the writ petitioner herein was revoked and re-instated into service under pending enquiry vide Proc.No.All448/2017, Dt' 03.08.2017. The Revenue Divisional Officer' Miryalguda & Enquiry Officer in this case has furnished his report as the charges not proved' The 8 ,,-rrrU_#i Res;pc has n by :lre on th divrlls disactr the ::t g ro5;s un-trrrt the ,tl Hgn,:r-. noti(;(: reco rJ i puni:;l-rr In cre:rn cha rrl r:< 04,7t) 2 A.P.Ciui appe,t .) Order', with I I annutrl c Proc. \ on the Comnris: Hydera ht examile: im pclsr: j Petitio 1€) 'rdent No.1 who is the Disciplinary Arrthority rt convinced with the explanation sutrmitted Sharged Officer/writ petitioner hereir b,ased : gravity of the irregularities caused for :,n of PDS Rice to block market and also r:rd with the conclusion of Enquiry Otfic€ r as luiry Officer has not touched tht: dr:pth ')ute of the Illegal storage of pDS -ic:: in r crized points under control/jurisdirtion of lrged Officer/the Writ petitioner l- erein. le Respondent No.1 has issued show,cause the writ petitioner duly rqlintimating the reasons for impose the 'rent to withhold of (1) Annual Gr,lde r.,t with cumulative efFect againsl _he Officer vide No.At/448/2017 t) 1. -.20 as per the procedure Rule 21 (2) of Services ( Classification, Control ernd ,l.ules, 1991 [Telangana State Adaptat on It.)16) and finalized the disciplinar), cE,se (rnalty oF punishment for stoppage of (1) r ade increment with cumulative effect virje ' AL/448/20t7, Dt. 28.t2.2020. Fur:hcr. :ppeal of the Writ petitioner, the Ch ef irrner of Land Administration, Telangana, .;, the Respondent No.2 herein has al:,;o I the records and confirmed the per alt:y ty the Respondent No.l since the ,//rit herein is responsible for h is g -o::s 7 9 SN,J wp_77L6_2027 negligence in performing his legitimate duties and his failure to make any efforts to control the illegal movement and storage of Essential Commodities at unauthorized locations under his control and caused for diversion of rice under Public Distribution System (PDS rice) to black market by Sri. K.Venkatram." DISC USSION AND CONCLU sION:-

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 herein and the respondent No.2 prejudged the subject issue at the stage of show-cause notice itself and indicated imposition of penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative eFfect against the Charged Officer i.e', the petitioner herein as a proposal of the disclplinary authority on 04'10'2020 itself and the Enquiry Officer's report dated 17 '09'2020 furnished to the petitioner along with show-cause notice dated 04.10.2020 clearly indicated two charges levelled against the petitioner as not proved and clear findings of the Enquiry Officer in favour of the petitioner herein'

9. Learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the impugned proceedings dated 28.12.2O2O ot the respondent No'1 10 SN,.J 'v p. .7 L76 _2022 and the consequential orders of the appellate authority i.e., respondent No.2 herein dated L4.L2.2O21 are passed without assigning any reasons and witlir rut ?rry justification, therefore, the writ petition rrr,eds to be allowed as prayed for.

10. Letttn:,1 Assistant Government pleader apl:e,rring on behalf of he respondents, on the other hand, placing reliance o. he averments made in the counter aff id,rvit filed on behall' o the respondent No.1, contends that therre is no illegality in the proceedings of the respondent N t,1 as confirmerl b y the appellate authority i.e., responrlent No.2, however ad rrits that the Enquiry Officer,s report i:; in favour of the l)i:t tioner, the disciplinary authority noj being convincec u il.h the explanation submitted by th e p(,)titioner and based r,'t the gravity of the irregularities cau sed for diversion cf' :,DS rice to black market had disagreeJ r,vith the conclusiorr , '.ived at by the Enquiry Officer, since the enquiry o'fic:r had not touched the depth gross r()o: of the illegal storar r,: of pDS rice in un-authorized poinj. arnd not ceased out t r: responsibility of the petitioner herr:i.r. . 7 11 SN,J wp_1t1-6_2022 11, In support of petitioner's case, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 25.LL.2022 passed in W.P.No.1325-l of 2O2O which had been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal W'A.No.314 of 2023 dated 03.O4.2023 and in particular, paragraph Nos'18 and 22 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: I & "18. The AD court in a iudq ent reDorted in 2OO9 (2) SCc570i nRuoSinoh hers, dated Neqi v. Pun ab Nation al Bank 19.12. 2OO8 held that the order of the Disciplinary Authority and also the Appellate Authority entails civit consequences and hence, the orders must be based on recorded reasons. At para 23 of the said judgment, it is observed as under : Para 23 : Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible' The 1-2 5N,l w p_7 776 _2022 t ro ' sions of the Evidence Act ma y r,ot be a p,p ir::able in a departmental proceeding t,ut the prir : iples of natural justice are. As the: re:tort of tr: i,rquiry officer was based on merel), os,e dixit as r l,;o surmises and conjectures, the sa ner could n0t - ave been sustained. The inferences rlrrrwn by tirr: . nqLl1., officer apparenily were not supoorted by rny evidence. Suspicion, as is w€lll lnown, h:w :ver high may be, can under no circurnsr-ances b,: l-.,1d to be a substitute for legal proof.,

22. Ta king into co nsid e ra tio n a | | th e ,;aid facts and circumstances and the law laid r by the Apex Court referred to and ext..acted :' and also the law laid down in the jurlg,nents I upon by the counsel for the petiticne,r and -r taking into consideration the fact ihat the rdent authority dealt with the subiect issue r )utine administrative matter, wherr:as it is a iudicial matter involving service carrler :)f the : ner and the competent author-i.:y was ',]d to pass speaking orders by givinq re,lsons r posing the penalty after consider nct the \, report, representation of the petitiorer- and -naterial concerning disciplinary p rc,c 3e,J in gs :ord, the respondent authority failed tc r:lo so re-judged the issue at the stage of is;sctance ,1/ cause notice itself. This Court opines that : other impugned orders in the pre:;€,nt writ alc r, dr),v atlr>r re li<: fu r',l- r€Spt as 3 rlL€:5 pet t 1-9,1 ,ti fol i inclui otlrr:r on |e a n,l I of sh, all th l 7 13 SN,J wp-71L6_2022 petition are not speaking orders giving reasons. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for and the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent Memo. No.CGM(HRD)/GM(Adm) /A'/DC.|/PO (DC. t)/341-C1/o6, dated 19.07.2014, and the consequential orders vide Memo. No.CGM (HRD)/GM (IR, L & Adm)/AS/DCIPO (DC.I) 34t-Ct/o6, dated 10.10.2014, Memo dated 20.08.2015 and Memo. No. CGM (HRD)/GM (Per)/AS/DC/PO (DC.I)/341- CLl06, dated 06.05.2020 are set aside as being unreasoned, routine and without application of mind and the respondents are further directed to consider the case of the petitioner to be notionally promoted as Divisional Engineer with effect from the date of promotion of the 5th Respondent with all consequential benefits including promotion to the post of Superintendent Engineer since it is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's name will be examined for promotion to the cadre 'whenever the of Superintending Engineer petitioner's name comes up in seniority, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law duly communicating the said decision to the Petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs." 74 SN,J Np _7116_2022 L2. A b r"e perusal of the impugned orde r dated 28.72.20.1( r:f the respondent No.1 herein cleary indicates that the I i,,;trict Collector, Nalgonda imposec] oe,nalty of withhold nc )ne increment of pay with cumulative effect of the peti :i:l ,:r herein in exercise of powers confr:rred by Rul 9(v'i of T.S.C.S (cc&A) Rules, 1991 an d the said easons or anv Proceedin. indicate anv iustifica[ic 1r. for imDo sinq the sa id pu nishme nt.

13. ,a trirr I perusal of the Enquiry Officer,s report. clearly indicates fi rdings in favour of the petitioner on t-v/o charges levelled ;rc A.rnst the petition the imoggl.ed order of he l"t res Dondent, dated retilects in 2a.L 2.202t(: v r !n rcinotf Officer the oetj ti rn r in leoitimat€:__ a _duties nor of anv materia I e io ne r's ind icaltns n n e art of e collusion__.! 1 w h st aoe-II Contracto_1 I nd K. Venka ram for t kino monev .bv the petitione 1-_ with a malafide i ntention. T ldinq Ar': icle of charoe2 fram ed aqai ns;t the petitio n e r_ h I S_ nAt jCC!!.-p rovgd! h. 7 15 SN,J wp_11l6 2027 L4. This Court also takes note of the fact that the show-cause notice dated O4.10.2020 issued by the District Cottector, Nalgonda clearly indicates a proposal of the disciplinary authority for imposing the penalty of withholding one increment of pay with cumulative effect against the petitioner herein, even before adjudication of the subject issue by the competent Authority in accordance to law.

15. Takin into consideration a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, c) The contents of the show-cause notice dated O4.LO.2O2O issued to the petitioner herein by the respondent No.1 (referred to and extracted above), 16 5N,J w) 171,6 2022 d) The f ndings of the Enquiry Officer's re1:rort in favour of trre petitioner in respect of the two articles of charge ramed against the petitioner and having held that ttle said two charges had not been ;rroved and, e) The ,:< ntents of the impugned proceedings of the respondent No.1 dated 2aJ2.2O2O and the irnprugned proceeding,; of respondent No.2 dated 18 t:?-.2O21 which adrn ttedly as borne on record are merchanical orders pars;ed without assigning any reasons and without a p rlication of mind and contrary lt:o the Enquiry Off cer's report, f) The jtrcqment of this Court dated 2S.L1l .ZO2Z passed in 4r.P.No.13257 ot 2O2O which had been confirmed t'V the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal W.4.No.314 of 2023 dated O3.O4.2O23 (referred lo and extracted above). The rn rit petition is allowed. The inrpugned ,c1 respondent No.l. Proc.No.F,1i.7 448/ZOLZ, dated ZB.I2.ZOZ0 and impugnecl crrder of the respondent No,2 vide -/ 7 L7 SN,J wp _7 LL6 _2022 Proc.No.VS.lll (2)/46/2O21, dated LA-L2-2O2L ate set asade. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Asa sequel, the miscellaneous petitions/ if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand ;losed. //TRUE COPYII SD/.MOHD, ISMAIL DEPUTY REGIS RAR I SECTION FFICER To, 'l . The Collector, and District Magistrate, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Telangana State, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad

4. One CC to SRI RANGARAJULA RAJASEKHARA RAO, Advocate. [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. louTl

6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court for the State of Telangana. louTl

7. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP .D HIGH COUR' DATED:01lCttt12925 CC TODAY ?, ,',4^' 'rt //,,>'' //\ ie s rAft ,tI ni rr"z; '\}\i' - i.:t, j,lN 2[25 Pz ,+ * s r'r"-i c '(.O ORDER WP.No.71 16 ( ,f 2022 ALLOWING'TI{E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C O STS C0o{,* \o b {