High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction, or writ more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the official respondents in not considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Director of Fisheries in view of the penalty of unjustified Censure imposed on him vide Procgs. No. 38/A'l/2024 dated 30.11.2024 duly holding the Censure Vide Proc.dt 30.1'1 .2024 as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, contrary to material on record and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without reference to the order of penalty of Censure imposed on the petitioner in Procgs No 38/Al /2024 dated 30.11 .2024. 186 lA NO: 1 OF 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 official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion without reference to the penalty of Censure imposed on him in Procgs No 381A112024 dated 30.11.2024 pending disposal of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJF,SHSIAR RAO WRIT PETIT ION No.5605 of2025 ORDER: Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries, appearing for respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been working in the Department of Fisheries for over 31 years and at present he is posted as Fisheries Development Officer (FDO), Sultanabad and District Fisheries Oflicer (DFO), Peddapally District. During the period of petitioner's service, he was awarded several commendations/certifications of appreciation lrom the Commissioner of Fisheries, District Collectors of Karimnagar District, Warangal District, Sultanabad District, etc' Earlier, when the petitioner was working as FDO/DFO, Warangal District, he was kept Full Additional Charge (FAC) of the post of ADF/DFO, Hanumakonda District, in addition to his normal duties during the leave period of ADF/DFO, Hanumakonda, from 12.O2.2024 to 23.O3.2024. 2

3. Learned counsei for the petitioner furtl-rer submits that during the period of FAC of the post of ADF/ District Fisheries Officer, of Han umakonda District, the petitioner ir-r order to streamline the rvork in general and the implementation of flagship activitir:s and ensuing Fish Seed Production season in the district under Fisheries Sector, he had issued Office Order Memo No. 13 lDstt. 12024, dated 12.02.2024 in the District Fisherics Oflice and Field Level indicating the work/area allotted and tvpe of w,ork allotted to each regular and contract staff member u.orking in the Office of DFO, Hanumakonda.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one of the Field Assistants by name Ms. P. Meghana, \\rorking on contract basis, rn,as ordered to work at Fish Seed Farm, Bheemaram of Halumakonda District, as per the Work Allocation Order dated 12.O2.2024. However. she bluntly refused to n,ork itt the above place and questioned the authority of the petitiont:r to issue such an order and in total disobedience of r-he order, and went on attending the office of the DFO, Hanumakonda, sitting idle, without doing trny ,,r,ork. Accordingly, the petitioner cautioned her about her disobedience a,d tried to persuade her to attencl to the allotted 3 work at Fish Seed Farm, Bheemaram. However, she threatened him that she would file complaints of sexual harassment and atrocity against a lady employee belonging to SC. Out of 12 employees working in the Office of DFO, Harumakonda only she has disobeyed the orders of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the lady Contract Field Assistant as threatened, has filed a complaint to the Commissioner of Fisheries and the District Coliector, Hanumakonda, on 78.O2.2024 and 26.O2.2024 alleging harassment by the petitioner. She has also passed on the information to the Press and News- 1O published a news item with title "Naidu Gari Vedhimpulu" (Harassment by Naidu) and Manapatrika Mana Gonthuka also published the same item in their newspaper

6. l,earned counsel for the petitioner further submits that I taking note of the compiaint and the news item published in the newspapers, the 5th respondent constituted a Three Men Committee, consisting of three women officers, viz. District Welfare Officer, Executive Director, SC Corporation and DR/AO, to conduct enquiry and to submit report, vide Order 4 dated 26.02.'20'.2,4. Tllre Committee submitted its report on

04.O3.2024 to the 5th respondent, observing that the petitioner disrespects all the emplovees of his particularlv women emplol,ees b1, using r.ulgar, profanity, uncivil vrrords and iil- treats them in office. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that based on the report of the above Committee, the 2"d respondent issu,:d Charge Memo to the petitioner vide Memo No.E-670486 138/A\12024 dated 30.03.2024 on the lbllowing Article of Charqe ''Tlnl Srr l' Nctresh Kumclr Natdu Fisheies Deuelopnent OfJicer/ I)tslnct Fis,lrenes Officer Warangal (Rural) and the then l-ull ,Additrorrctl I lktr(rc to tlLe post of I)FO/ ADF Hanumakonda Disttict has failed to (lrsclLerge. official ddes stnoothlg - qttettding o|.ficial cluties trr.1 (lt.scour1eous cotd dlscifiLinete tnonner with a nll workutg ruornt'rt corltkttlct, end sLaff tnetnbers arLd lhus leading to tlrc efli'ct oJ' creetutg e (l intutidatltlg or lrcstile uorking enuironmeat in the ofJic" - Neglryleru'L oncl dereliction of rluties - Thus, he l],'s uiolate.,tthe Rules .l(1). jti rrnd.3D o/?S Cir,rl Seruices (Cotduct), Rules, 1961." B. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even after the petitioner submitting detailed explaniltion, the respondent authorities issued proceedings No.38 l Al /2024, dated 30.11.2024 imposing the penalty of censure on the 5 petitioner under RuIe 9 clause(l) 1 of CCA Rules for his negligence of the duties. g. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader submits that he got instructions and the District Collector, Hanumakonda, submitted the enquiry report of Internal Complaints Committee to Principal Secretary to Govt. AHDD&F department vide Rc.No.Al/39412024' dated 06.O3.2024 under copy to this Office. In the Internal Complaints Committee report "it is stated that they observed that it is clearly evident that Sri P. Naresh Kumar Naidu disrespects all the employees of his office particularly women employees by using r,rrlgar, profanity, uncivil words and i11- treat them in office" and also stated that Sri P. Naresh Kumar Naidu is discharging all his allotted duties effectually "but he is loose-lipped and a habitual caste backbiter and finally the committee submitted that due to aggressive behavior and rudeness towards employees working in his office caused such lSSUCS

10. Learned Government Pleader further submits that keeping ali the circumstances, evidences that are been taken by the lnterna-l Complaints Q9gmittee at District Level and report 6 submitted b1' the District Collector, Hanumakorlda, the action was initiated by the Director of Fisheries, Hyderabad, vide Procgs. No.3B/Al /2024, dated 30.11.2024 with a Minor Penalty i.e. Ar.r'arded CENSURE to the petitioner i.e. Sri p. Naresh Kumar Naidu, FDO & DFO (FAC) peddapalli. 1 1. Learned Government Pieader further submits that under the punishment of Censure, the petitioner is not eligible for promotion.

12. Per contra. learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passecl b1 this Court in W.P.No.46 l2 of 2019, dated

03.O4.2O19, u,hir:l-r reads as under: " Hauing ntqrLrtl to tl'te Jacts and submi.ssions and for the reasons allkr l-s utere mentktned in tlrc aforestated order, thts Wit Petitiotl is ctlloLued and the impugned order is set asicle; ctccordingly, thcr<: shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the rns^e of the petitioner for promotion, utitltout reference la lhc cuffetTcA of orte gear in respect of tlrc penalty of censure, arrrJ pass appropiate orders uithin a pertod oJ four uteeks frorn thc LTate of receipt of a copg of this order. It is made explrtit lltet the consequential action to be taken by the respondents, us per these orders shall not be hindered by the reason thut tttc penctltA of censure uill haue o. period of currencA o.l' or'.e qectr. " 7 In the case on hand, the period of punishment of censure is not mentioned' Even otherwise, a perusal of the instructions obtained by the learned Government Pleader' it shows that the punishment awarded is a Minor Penalty i e' awarded CENSURE.

13. In view of the submissions made by the both the counsel' the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistalt Director of Fisheries, u.ithout reference to the penalty of censure and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' t4 Accordingly the Writ Petition is disposed of' There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending' if any' in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed' S ASI D/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI R REGIST TANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Soecial Chief Secretary, State of Telangana' Animal Husbandry' Diary Devel6oment and FisheneJ b;'[irtmeni Se"cretariat' Hvderabad comm issioner of Fisheries, ffi itv;'ffi ;i;""'-b h-intinag ir' street No 4' lvlasab Tank, HYderabad 6[#6i;iii"ri[,ii".-ina.ruun"g'i+ffi to,,;"r,:ffi"F,MatsvaBhavan' Shantinaqar, Street No. 4, 6;iHi;;';a tjiitiict rrlaslstrate, Hanumak-onda Dist' 6ll"6c'tJ'bnr o.[itrcA"nno' Advocate-[oPUC!.. rwo ccs to GP FoR rrsnEXidil ti[n*-c'o-"tl#tne state of relansana' at Hyderabad. [OUTI Two CD CoPies 2 ^. To

3. 4 5 6 ,7 PSK. BS HIGH COURT DATED:1010312025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.5605 of 2025 He ST4 rF 1 j lsnrnM t $ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS GYqi4 *c- f",$tr I I I