Shaik Madar v. same incident in a department case against the

Heard Sri R. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearirng on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistalrt Government Pleader for Social Welfare, appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.

2. under: ,'...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declare the action of the Govt. Memo. No. 16;'66 S. W Ser-I. B-99-3 Dated 25-02-2000 issued by the 1't respondent and rejecting of appreals vide Govt. Memo. No. :b;'glsco .ser.A2l2018-1 dated o4-t2-2018 and Merno No. 620/SCD. Ser. A2/2O19-2 Dated 30-05- 2O1-g and consequential proceedings of the znd respondent in Rc. No. M1/21006/94-I dated 26- 07-L996 in spite of setting aside the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide Govt. Merro. No. 165901A3197-L SW Dated 03-10-1997, order dated 29-06-2OL7 in W. P. No. 5159/2005 of i:his Honble Court and its implementation order issr.red in G. O. Rt. No. 310 SCD (A2) Dept. Dated 25-O7-}OLB and even though in this disciplinary prc,ceedings based on identical and similar set of facts, the same charges, same period and same incident in a department case against the 2 *"-*rr-?ilii petitioner in C.C. No.7/2OO1 in Cr' No' 106/1995 and other Calendar Cases in Cr. No' 04/1995 and the charges before the Criminal Court are one and the same holding that the petitioner did not find any guilty for the offences alleged in Calendar Casei and not conducted enquiry under APCS (CCA) Rules 1991 and imposed punishment upon the petitioner in Rc. No. M1/21006194't Dated 26-0:7-Lgg6 is illegal, unjust, impermissible, unfair, arbitrary, unconstitutional, no jurisdiction to reopen the petitioner by the 2nd respondent under Rule 41 of APCS CCA Rules, suffered from delay on part of the respondents in conctuding the same in reopened case till today and contrary to the G. O. No. 679 GAD (SER-C) Dept. dated 01- 11-2018 and contrary to the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court reported in State of A'P' Vs. V.N. Radhakrishna (1998 (4) SCC L54), in P'V' Mahadevan. Vs. M.D. Tamilnadu Housing Board (2005 (5) SCC 636), and in M.V. Bijtani Vs' Union of India and others (2006 (5) SCC 88) ii) Consequently set aside the proceedings of tle 2na respondent in A2|L2O7L/1994 Dated L6-07- Lgg4 and proceedings Rc. No. M1/21006194-L dated 26-07-Lgg6 and the consequential proceedings and further direct the respondents to release oi three (3) annual grade increments which were stopped with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension as on duty with all conlequential benefits and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Social Welfare w.e.f. 2000 on par with his luniors Sri. Safdar Hussain and Y' Chenchanna while considering the number of juniors from time to time even though the petitioner is fully eligible, qualified and within the zone of consideration on the untenable ground that disciplinary proceedings initiated duly re-fixing the pay and revised pay scales from time with all attendant benefits"' 3 SN, J wP_6627_20t9 3 writ oetition is as under: When the petitioner was working as Assistant Social V/elfare Officer, Narsampet, a charge memo vde Rc. No. M1/21006/94-4 dated 29.L2.L994 was issued alleging that the petitioner was negligent in performing petitioner's duties and failed in supervising. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the 2nd respondent, who subsequently issued Show Cause notice rride Rc.No.Mtlz}O1lg4, dated 23.03.1996. The petitioner also submitted a representation to the 1tt respondent, who conducted an Enquiry dated

09.09.i1002, in pursuance to which the 2nd respondent imposed punishment of stoppage of three annual grade incremr:nts with cumulative effect to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said punishment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed o.A. No. 5968 of 2003 before the Hon'blel Tribunal, which was rejected. The petitioner, h ..-_----.,;;;j.+F+' -,:... i I 4 SN, J wP 6627 2019 on an earlier occasion filed W.P. No. 51Sg of 2005 before this Court, and this Court passed a stay order on the Departmental Enquiry. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by its order dated 29.06.2017 and allowed the said writ petition. The petitioner-thereafter filed contempt case No. 1361 of 2018, which was also disposed of. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on 31.L2.2005 upon superannuation. The petitioner is challenging the said punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect issued by the znd respondent and seeks to have the period of suspension treated as on duty with all consequential benefits, including consideration of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director on par with his Juniors.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD (A) hereunder "S.b,:- SwD-Warangal District - Release of increments to certain Wardens / Matrons who are involved in misappropriation of I 1[ I I t' i 5 SN. J wP 6627 2019 Government money in the year 1994 Proposals submitted - Reg. BCt:- 1. From the Telangana Wardens/Matrons foru m Representation dt.30.09. 1999' 2. Govt. Memo No.16766/ S'W' Ser' l'B/ 99' dt. 18.10.1999.

3. From the CSW AP., Hyderabad Lr'Nb'Z'V' IB.:t71881, dated 27 .1O.99. The Commissioner of Social Welfare is requested to take action accordingly' SYed Ikramuddin Dy. SecretarY to Government To Cc,mmissioner of Social Welfare, Pr;ndesh, Hyderabad". Andhra (Et) The letter issued bv the Government of extracted hereunder: "5@,:- SCDD Appeal petition filed by Sri Shalk NaGil formerly ASWO, Narasampat, W1'.T9.?l Oistrict and DSWO (Retired), Olo DD(SW)' HyCerabad Request to drop the punishment orders 6 ,", *r, ?ilii and to regularize the suspension period as on duty- Appeal rejected -Reg. Ref:- 1. From the CSW, AP, Hyderabad procgs. Rc.No.M L/2t006/94-1, Dt. 26.7 .1996.

2. From the Director, SCD, TS, Hyderabad Lr.Rc.No.A3l4428/2017, Dated: 23.08.2018 and dt. 30.10.2018 along with appeal petition of Srt Shaik Madar, DSWO(Retired), Hyderabad dt.14.8.2018.

3. Appeal petition of Sri Shaik Madar, DSWO (Retired), Hyderabad dt.25.8.2018. In the reference 1't cited, the Commissioner, Social Welfare, Hyderabad has concluded the disciplinary proceedings against Sri Shaik Madar, by awarding him a penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

2. In the reference 3,.d cited, Sri Shalk Madar, District Social Welfare Officer (Retired), Hyderabad has filed appeal petition over the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade Increments with cumulative effect imposed in the year 1996, and also to regularize the suspension period i.e. 26.7.1994 to 28.3.1996 as on duty.

3. In the reference 2nd cited, the Director, SCD, TS, Hyderabad has requested the Government to issue appropriate orders on representation/appeal petition of the applicant over the punishment of stoppage of (3) AGIS with cumulative effect was Imposed and also on the regularization of suspension period from 26-07-L994 to 28-03-1996.

4. Government have examined the entire matteir in detail and observed that the individual was awarded with penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect in the year 1996 for the proved case of negligence. It was reopened by issuing charge memo again in the year 2OO2. The APAT dismissed the OA filed by Individual and High Court allowed by setting aside the action of issuing charge memo observing double jeopardy. Thus, the 7 SN, J wP_6627J0t9 punishment issued in the year 1996 is in force, which wa:; concluded with penalty.

5. Accordingly, Government hereby rejected the apt,eal petition of the individual and the suspension period i.e. from 26.7.t994 to 28.3.1996 treated as "Nc,t on duty", as the suspension is to be treated as justified.

6. The Director, SCD, TS, Hyderabad is therefore req uested to take necessary further action accordingly in the matter. A]AY MISRA SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (FAc) l'o T'he Director, SCD, TS, Hyderabad. Siri Shaik Madar, DSWO (Retired), Hyderabad (through the Director, SCD, TS, Hyderabad". (c:) "S@.:- SCDD-Sri Shaik Madar, formerly ASWO, DSWO (Retired), O/o DD(SW), Hyderabad Stoppage of 3 AGIs witlr cumulative effect imposed Regularization of period of suspension as " Not on duty" - Orders issued - Appeal filed -Reg. Rc. No. M :L/ztOOOlg4- 1, Dt.26. 7 . L996. Rerf:- 1. From the CSW, AP, Hyderabad ProcAs. 2. From the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad orders dt. 29.6,2OL7 in W.P. No 5159/2005 filed by Sri Shalk Madar, DSWO (Retired). 3. G.O.Rt. No. 310, SCD(Ser.A2) Dept., Dt.

25.7.20L8. / / 8 SN. J wP 6627 2019 4. Appeal petition of Sri Shaik Madar, DSWO 5. Govt. Memo No. 3879/ SCD.Ser.A2/2O18-t, Dt: (Retired), Hyderabad dt.25.8. 20 18. 04-12-20t8.

6. Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad orders dt.8.4.2019 in IA No.L/20L9 in W.P.No. 6627/20t9 filed by Shalk Madar, DSWO (Retd) 7. Appeal petition of Sri Shaik Madar, DSWO 8. From the Director, SCD, TS, Hyderabad (Retired), Hyderabad dt. 15.4.2019. Lr. No.A3l4428/ 2017, Dt.07 .5.2O L9. Charges were framed against Sri Shaik Madar, formerly ASWO, DSWO (Retired), O/o DD (SW), Hyderabad for his failure to supervise the Hostels and exercise control over the staff of the hostels by admitting more number of boarders, resulting in mismanagement of hostels by wardens as well giving such scope to the Wardens to manipulate the accounts of the hostels vide Commissioner of SW ProcAs. Dt. 29.L2.L994. The enquiry report reveals individual's guilty of negligence and slackness. Accordingly, the Commissioner, SW, Hyderabad has awarded him penalty of stoppage of (3) Annual Grade Incrernents with cumulative effect vide reference 1't cited.

2. Again articles of charges were framed against Sri Shaik Madar, ASWO, formerly worked at Narsampet, Warangal District, vide Procgs dated 10.05.2002 and Enquiry Officer was appoin among other vide 23.06.2003. The Procgs. Rc. No. J2l30 24 / L995, d and the Tribunal in its applicant filed O.A.No.5968/20 order dated 28.02.2005 dismi the O.A. Aggrieved, he the High Court. The has filed W.P.No.5159/2005 Hon'ble High Court set aside the dated 28.02.2005 in O.A.No.596B of 2003 passed the Tribunal and quash Charge Memo dated 10.05 and Enquiry proceedings dated 23.06.2003 as the issue already been decided in W.P.No.5152/2OO5, and given direction to release all consequential terminal benefits which the petitioner is entitled to vide reference 2nd

3. In view of the above, orders were issued vide reference 3'd cited, for implementation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad dated 29.6.2017 in W.P. No.5159/2005 and to release all the retirement benefits to the individual to avoid further legal complications and the 9 *r-uurr-?ilii Director, SCD, TS, Hyderabad was requested to take action accordirglY. 4 Sri Shaik Madar, DSWO (Retired) has filed an appeal'lletitionbeforetheGovernment'requestingtodrop the purrishment orders and to regularize the. suspension p".ioa i.". 26.7.tgg4 to 28'3'1996 as on duty and to sanction along with arrears vide reference 4th cited' ZOOZ.

5. Government have examined the entire matter in detailandobservedthattheindividualwasawardedwitha penafty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect in the y"u. iss6 for the proved case of negligence. It *ii-iu:.pened by issuing charge memo again in the year -t-he APAI Aismiss6a the OA filed by Individual and iign court allowed by setting aside the action of issuing charge memo oUs"i,ing d6uble Jeopardy' Thus' the puniinrnent issued in the year 1996 is in force' was conclucled witn benalty and therefore rejected the appeal pltiiion of Sri sf,aik Madar, and the suspension period i.e., from 2.r.O7.Lgg4to 28.03.1996 treated as "Not on duty"' as the sus;pension is to be treated as ]ustified vide reference 5.,, cited. rS.SriShaikMadarhasfiledW.P.intheHon.bleHigh Court, Hyderabal ano the Hon'ble court in its orders dt. 8.4.2019 in I.A. No.U2019 in W'P'No'6627120L9 given directir:ntopetitionertosubmitafreshrepresentationto r-espor,dents anJ upon such re.p.resentation being received, ttre' respondents shalt consider the same and pass approllriate orders, in accordance with law vide reference 6th cited.

7. Keeping in view of the orders of Hon'ble High Court dt. 8.4.2016, tne individual has submitted an appeal petiticn vide reference 7th cited'

8. Government have examined the entire matter in detail and obseir"o tnut, disciplinary action was initiated ajainst Sri Shaik Madar in the year 1994' it was concluded Ui-avvarOing nim *itn u penalty'of stoppage of three annual grade incremenir'*ith cumulative effect. In the year 1997, Sgain on the instructions of Government' the Commissioner' Socia welfare r.lii ,*p"ned the case and framed afticle of charges vioe proi. ot.ro.os '2002' This was challenged by the individual OA.rvo.S968/2003' It was dismissed' The t0 SN, J wP_6627_20t9 individual filed by filing w.p.No.5159/2005 in the High court challenging the APAT orders. The High court allowed the w.P. .on the ground of deray in re-opening the case and double punishment etc, and given direction t-o retease all his terminal benefits. Accordingry, it is reported that, ail the pensionary benefits were released.

9. Government have further observed that the Hon'bre court has set aside the charge memo issued 2nd time on the same charge observing the deray and doubre jeopardy. Hence, the earlier penalty is in force and the regulaiizing tl.re period of suspension as 'not duty' is justifie?, since the allegation on which he was placed undLr suspension and framed charges were ended with penalty.

10. Accordingry, Government decided to reject the appeal petition of the Individual, as there are no new grounds to concede the request of the individuat. Ac_cordingly, the appeal petition filed by sri shaik Madar, DSWO (Retired), Hyderabad District in the reference 7nh cited is hereby rejected.

11. The Director, SCD, TS, Hyderabad is therefore. requested to take necessary further action accordingly in the matter. Sd/- xxx spEcrAL cHrEF sECRETARy ro Govu**ffAlr1'riB To The Director, SCD, TS, Hyderabad. Sri Shaik Madar, DSWO (Retired), Hyderabad (through the Director, SCD, TS, Hyderabad),,. (D) "Sub:- ASWO-Estt-ASWO-Warangat dist_ Sri Shaik Madar, ASWO, Narsampet, Warangal d'ist_ placed under suspension- charge memo issued- eipranation received-Asst Director(Legal ce-il) appointed ui corron Enquiry officer- SN, J wP_6627 _20t9 Enquiry report submitted- Reinstated to duty pending finalizatior of enquiry report_Disciplinery p'roceeOings finaliz.ed- Stoppage of 3 annual grade increments with cumulative, effect-Orders_Issued.

01.02.199:;. dt.04.06.2005. Ref:- Thisoffice charge memo Rc.No.Mll 2LOO6/}4_ 4 dated 2,.9.12.1994 issued- to Sri Shaik- M;";; ASWO, Narsampet(under suspension). ^- ^_ ?. - DO(SU Warangat Lr.No. L/L7/g5,. dt. 3. This office proce. No. Rc.No. ML/2LOO6 /Lgg4, 4. Enquiry report dt. 30.12.95 of the AD)(Legat 5. Show Cause notice Rc.No.M l/21006/94 dated 23.O3.1996 issued to Sri S. Swamy, ASWO(under suspension,t 6. Lr.No.AllLg5/94, dated 09.04.1996 from the Cell) O/o. (:SW, A.p. Hyderabad. DO(SW) Karimnagar. 1'- Raising the preriminary enquiry report of the Joint Director(vig) office of the commission",. oi sociar werfare, Hyderabad dt. 13.03.7g, certain wardens/matrons and Asst. Social welfare officers viz., D.Sayanna, Snaf< Madar, S.Swamy E,od Kum. K. Rajsawari,' were placed under suspension. 2' In this office reference 1sr cited charges were framed against sri Shaik Madar, aswo, ror,,"ir/,iorked at Narsarhpat, warangar dist., .uiring for his expianation for the charges mentioned therein. 'Th; Dy. Dire_ctor(SW )warangar has forwarded the expran"iiln of Sri D. Sayanna, Shaik Marer and Swamy vide reference 3.d read above.

3. The Asst. Director (Legal cell)o/o. the commissionerr of socia-r welfare, nyderJbad *ir'lppointed 31 colmon Enquiry officer: for conducting detaiteJ enqri.y into the irregurarities committed by th6 aswolwardens under Rute 2,1_(1) of A.p.c.s. (ccA) Rules, 1991 in irris office Proceedings .).d read stove. 4' The Asst. Director (Legar cail)/Enquiry officer has conducted Enquire into the matter and'submitted his report vide refer€flcr-" 4th read above. As per the Enquiry report the . f / n ., .r t2 SN, J wP 6627 20t9 Enquiry officer Asst. Director(Legal cell)has proceeded to Warangal on 09-07-1995 and conducted the enquiry into the irregularities from L4.O7.1995 to L7.07.1995. The Enquiry officer in his general remarks has mentioned that major variation in the figures shown in charge memos and the amounts found by Enquiry Officer are due to the amounts of arrears drawn during the year are taken in charge memo and eligibility is given for financial year only. The Enquiry officer has not taken the arrears drawn during the year into consideration as the eligibility is calculated fot- the year 1993-94 only.

5. As seen from the Enquiry report, three charges have been framed against the delinquent ASWO and out of them only one charge has been held proved by the Enquiry officer.

6. After examining the report submitted by the Enquiry officer with reference to the charges framed, explanation given by the delinquent ASWO it is observed that Sri Shaik Marar, ASWD, is held guilty of negligence and slackness even though no misappropriation is found against him. In view of thisl show cause notice vide reference 5th read above was served on Sri Shaik Madar, ASWO, formerly ASWU, Narsamnet to explain as to why his three annual grade increments should not be stopped with cumulative effect.

7. The Deputy Director, Karimnagar vide his letter 6th read above has forwarded the explanation of Sri Shaik Mader, ASWO. The following are the details of charge proved and indicated in the show cause notice and explanation given by the delinquent ASWO- Charges: He being a responsible ASWO failed to supervise Govt., hostels and exercise control over the staff of the hostels in his jurisdiction by admitting more number of boarders i.e., tOOg boarders as against sanctioned strength of 800 thus resulting in mismanagement of hostels by wardens, matrons as well giving such scope to the wardens/matrons to mani.pulate the accounts of the hostels. Explanation given by Sri Shaik Madar. ASWO- E*=.. ..-.- --- l3 *.-uurr-?ilii In lris explanation to the Show cause notice Sri Shaik Madar, ASWO, has submitted that out of 3 charges, charge 1 and 2 have not been held proved and he is not offering any explanation for the said charge. He offered explanation to charge No.3 basing on the findings of Enquiry officer about the charge No.3 which are as follows:- While holding that the delinquent is reSponsible to check vvhether the boarders admitted by the Wardens/ft,latrons as per the wi'itten orders from the Dy. Director or not and to take immediate stains to remove such boarders vvho are directly admitted by the Warden without the orders of competent authority, and report the facts to the Dy. Director(Social Welfare) whether the admission of the boarders are according to the orders of the Dy. Director (SW) or rryhether there were any irregular admission of bogus boarders, the boarders admission registered, records maintainecl in Dy. Director office or the copies of proceedincs issued by the Dy. Director(SW) were not produced irefore the enquiry. The delinquent has failed to check the admissions made in Nachinapally Boys hostel properly and allowed the wardens to maintain in bogus boarders and signed the bills produced by the said warden. Thus the charges is held proved against the delinquent ASWO. With regard to the admission of the boarders into hostels, the instructions issued by the Commissioner and Dy. Direct'rr (SW) from time to time have been followed strictly. No excess boarders have been admitted in violation of instructions in his jurisdiction hostels. Further each and every boarder has been admitted in the hostel with the proceedings of the Dy. Director (SW)Warangal only. Further he checkecl the hostel admission register and hostel records with the written orders of the Dy.Director (SW) Warangal. He noticed that there was not a single boarder was admitted directly without proceedings of the Dy. Director (SW) Warangal rn Narsampet area hostels. When the boarders admission ,^/ere made by the Dy. Director(SW)Warangat with his proceeclings, the question of taking any steps against the arising wardens/matrons does not arise. Regarding variation between sanctioned strength of Nachanapally hostel, ther delinquent has submitted that the following points/factr;:- \.r' / l4 SN, J wP 6tr.27 2019 During the year 1988-89, the sanctioned strength of Nachanpally hostel, Warangal borders on the roll of the hostel were 73 and vacancies were 27 at the reopening of the hostel after summer vacation. For the year 1989-90 fresh application forms for hostel admission received 13 against 27 vacancies in the Nachinapally hostel. The same was placed before the Hostel Advisory committee concerned with the position. The Committee while recommending 13 fresh applications for hostel admission. to the Dy. Director(SW) Warangal, the Chairman of the Committee expressed his opinion as follows: "After through discussions it is found that the SC students are being delinquently discouraged. Hence applications for admission unlike other places are far below. The Dy. Director (SW) is requested to enquire into the matter and find out solution to encourage the SC students". In response to the above opinion of the Chairman, Hostel Advisory Committee, the Dy. Director (SW) Warangal instructed the warden/matron and ASWO to contact the SC elderly persons in surrounding villages of their respective hostel and explain in detail the facilities provided to the SC students. Further he informed that in case of eligible SC students who are seeking admission into the hostel will be admitted without any restriction of sanctioned strength. Accordingly efforts were made to increase the strength in the hostel. However the renewal strength of the hostel was 98, vacancies t2 for the year 1990-91, fresh application received were 32 out of which 26 were SCs and the hostel Advisory Committee after examining all the SC applications selected and recommended for hostel admission to SC students only. During the year 1991-22, renewal strength of the boarders in Nachanapally hostel was 114 as against the sanctioned strength of 100. 63 fresh application were received against no vacancies. Out of which 46 application belong to SC and the Hostel Advisory Committee selected all the 46 students and recommended to DD(SW) Warangal for admission in to the hostels" During t993-94 maintained strength of the hostel was 215 and against 12 vacancies in the hostel, 74 fresh applications were received. Keeping in view the availability of accommodation in the hostel, the hostel advisory committee has recommended to restrict the strength to the number maintained during the previous year. Hence the DD(SW) Warangal in his Lr.Rc.No.3/747/3L, dt. 06.07.2003 has informed that no fresh boarders should F:-* l5 SN, J wP 6627 2019 be admitted over and above the last year maintained strength of the hostel' In view of this Sri Shaik Madar' ASWO has requested to drop further action in the matter' Afte,r careful examination of the explanation given by Sri Shaik Shaik Uia.., eiWO with reference to charge held proved and conne.t.t'ru.ords the explanation offered by Sri Sheik Marlar is found to be not convincing and punishment of stoppage oi-tnt"" annual grade increments with cumulative effect ai indicated in ttie show cause notice 5th ieaO aOore is herebY confirmed' Thr: Dy. Director(SW)Kar:imnagar should ensure the entry reglarding tfo punithment. awlrded is made in the service bcok of Sij Sfraif< Madar' ASWO' formerly worked at Narsamp'etofWarangafdistrictandcurrentlyworkingat Sultanab;rd, Karimnagar District' Sd/- V' Sarma Rao' Commissioner of Social Welfare"' (t,) The additional counter affidavit filed bv extraclled hereunder: *11. Since the punishment continues to be in force, the petitioner' is not eligible for notional promot:ion or ror rliutari4tion of suspension period as "on dLtty", as truiti',uO' The claim has already been - ;G consideration by competent rejected after authority and the same cannot be reopened at this belated stage without valid grounds' :l.2.Itisthereforerespectfullysubmittedthatthe amencled relief .iiir*O by the petitioner is barred by delay, ,nrrppo.t"O Oy fresh grounds' and contrary to settled legat PrinciPles"' t6 SN, J wP 66,27 2019 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 5 submissions (a) The disciplinary proceedings against in respect 34 other similarly situated persons, like the petitioner had been set aside by this Court in relation to the same subject issue in the W.P.(TR).No.2283 of 20L7 , W.P. No.3204t of 20L4, W.P. No.11821 of 2020, W.P. No. 3513 of 2022. (b) Subsequently, the Government had also issued G.Os in respect of the said petitioners. However in respect of the petitioner alone, the impugned proceedings vide RC. No.M Ll2tOO6/94-L, dated

26.07.1996 is being continued. (c) It is the specific case of the petitioner that certain irregularities were alleged against the petitioner while the petitioner was working as ASWO, Narsampet, Warangal District during the period from 14.07.1995 to t7.07.1995. '.-'t. t7 SN, J wP-6627 _2019 (d) Three specific charges were framed against the petitioner, and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting an enquiry, held that the petitioner was guilty of negligr:nce and slackness, even though, no misappropriation of funds had been proved against the petitiorer. (e) Accordingly, a Show Cause notice dated

23.03.1996 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to explain why three of petitioner's Annual Grade Increments should not be stopped with cumuli:tive effect. r:f) The petitioner submitted detailed explaration, however, without considering the same, and t'olding that the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not conclusive the punishment of stoppcrge of three Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect, as indicated in the Show Cause notice vide Rc. No.MLl2LOO6l94 dated 23.03.1996 issued to the petitioner had been confirmed. (g) Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. i I / / t !, I t8 SN, J wP_6627-2019 (h) The punishment imposed on the petitioner was made without conducting any enquiry as contemprated under Rure 20, 2L Rure 22 0f Apcs(ccA) Rures 1gg1 and without forowing due process of raw as per APCS(CCA) Rutes 1991. (i) The impugned order is riabre to be set aside, since it was admittedry passed based sorery on the enquiry report of the commissioner of sociar werfare, Hyderabad. (i) As the Enquiry officer/Assistant Director, (legal Cell) without conducting any proper enquiry, passed the impugned order, the impugned order needs to be set aside. (k) In respect of the alleged irregularities committed by the ASWS/wardens, simirar disciprinary proceedings had been initiated against 34 other individuals. (r) Though the petitioners herein had arso been acquitted in the Criminal Case r:egistered against the petitioner, the impugned order dated 26.07.1996, was passed by the 2nd respondent illegally. 19 SN, J wP_6627 _20t9 (n) In view of the fact that, in respect of the similarly situated 34 other individuals, this Court had set aside all the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the said 34 other individuals in W.P. No.23146 of 2019 and batch by order dated 06.09.2024, the petitiorrer also is entitled to similar relief. (rr) Reliance is placed on the judgment dated

06.01.,t023 passed in the W.P. No. 11821 of 2020 in favour of the petitioner case and the order dated

19.06.2t023 passed in W.P.(TR).No. 2283 of 2017. (,1) Reliance is placed on the Division Bench Judgment dated 29.06.2017 passed in W.P. No.5159 of 2005 I'iled by the petitioner herein on an earlier occasion, wherein the respondents had been directed to release all the terminal benefits to the petitioner within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of the said order.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute, the submissions made by the learned counse! / J 20 SN, J wP 66.27 2019 appearing on behalf of the petitioner who places reliance on the Judgment dated 25.Lt.2OLg passed in W.P. No.26542 of 2017 but however contends that the action of the 1't respondent in directing the znd respondent to reopen the disciplinary pioceedings against the petitioner was faulted by the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the said reopening proceedings. However, that does not mean that the earlier disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which ended in the imposition of the penalty of stoppage of Two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner are liable to be set aside. It is therefore contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

7. A bare perusal of the record indicates that the order impugned dated 26.07.1996 was admittedly passed solely on the basis of the Enquiry Report, without conducting any Enquiry as mandated under the rules particularly Rules 20, 2t, 24 and 4! ot the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. -'\a 2l SN, J wP_6627-0t9 The learned Assistant Government Pleader also does not dispute the said fact. Therefore, this Courlt opines that the petitioner is entitled for granlL of relief as prayed for in the present writ petitiion.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner preferred a revielv dated 11.10.1996 before the 1't respondent herein and the 1't respondent acknowtedged the said revievv on 11.10.1996, with a specific prayer to set aside the order dated 26.07.1996 imposed against the petiticlner, to release the Annual Grade Increments with cumuiative effect to the petitioner and to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as "on duty". Howe'yer, flo orders had been passed on the said revievv preferred by the petitioner on 11.10.1996 before the 1't respondent as on date.

9. A bare perusal of the order impugned dated

25.02.2000 indicates that the penalty imposed against the petitioner was directed to continue until a decision 22 SN, J wP_6627_2019 was taken on the Review by the Government' However,thoughthesaidproceedingscontinuedtill 25.02.2000, the exercise of Review had not been taken by the Government, even after the lapse of more than 25 years. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner dated 25.08.2018 seeking to drop the punishment orders issued against the petitioner on 26'O7'1996 and to regularize the suspension period from 26'07 '1994 to

28.03.l996aswellastosanctionallarrearsduetothe petitioner, the said appeal was rejected on the ground thattheGovernmenthaddecidedtorejecttheappeal petition of the individual, stating that there were no grounds to consider the request' However' the rejection was made without assigning any reasons duly considering the appeal put forth by the petitioner dated 25.08.2018, seeking to drop punishment order issuedagainstthepetitioner'Therefore'thisCourtis of the firm view that subject issue reguires reconsideration by the Respondents herein' 23 SN, J wP 6621 2019

10. Fara 47 : Summarising the above discussion, this C)ourt holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has a,lways been to record reasons, even in a,dministrative decisions, if such decisions a'ffect a nyone prej ud icia lly. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons ri; meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it ntust also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as ittdispensable a component of a decision- ntaking process as observing principles of 24 SN, J wP_6627J019 natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judiciat review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in att countries committed to rule . of . law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtuaily the lifeblood of judiciat decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the sout of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judiciat opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serue one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectivety considered. Thtis is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (il Insistence on reason ,s a requirement for both judiciat accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a.quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding ,s faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. 25 SN, J wP 6627 2019 (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A ,oretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp ,reasons" is not to be equated with a vatid dec is io n - m a ki n g p rocess. (m) It cannot be douibted that transparency rb the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of ;'udicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject l-o broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, (o) In att common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for clevelopment of law, requirement of giving reason, for the decision is of the essence and is v'irtually a part of "dtte process".

11. Appeal No.9849 of 2O14 observed as under:. t! l. .-* , 26 SN, J w?_6627 2019 treated differentlv." L2. A bare perusal of the observations of the Apex court in the two Judgments, referred to and extracted above indicate that impugned orders being bereft of reasons are liable to be set aside and further that it is settled law that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit, since it is the specific case of the petitioner even as per the averments made at para Nos.3, 7 and B of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition which had not been disputed 27 SN, J wP 6627 2019 even by the respondents herein, that with regard to other three employees similarly situated like the petitir:ner herein, in fact pursuance to the setting aside of Charge Memo they had received their entire terminal benefits including re-fixation and release of 3 Annual Grade Increments cumulatively and the same is not dispuled even by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

13. Takinq into consideration : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of th,e case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the :;ubmissions made on behalf of the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The order dated 06.09.2024 passed in W.P. No.23 L46 of 2019 and batch giving relief to the 34 other individuals, 28 SN, J wP_6627:Ntg (d) The contents of the Additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 in particular Para Nos. 11 and 12 (referred to and extracted above), (e) The observations in the two Apex Court , Judgments referred to and extracted above, The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings of the znd respondent vide Rc.No. Mtl2t}Oilg4-l dated 26.07.1996 is set aside. The impugned order vide Memo. No. 16756 S. W Ser-I. 8-99-3 Dated 25-O2'20OO issued by the 1't respondent and rejection of appeals vide Govt. Memo. No. 3879lSCD.Ser.A2|2OLB'L dated o,4- Lz-20ta and Memo No. 620/SCD. Ser. A2/2OL9-2 Dated 3O-O5-2O19 are set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in respect of the promotion for the post of the Deputy Director with effect from 2OOO on par with his juniors viz., Sri Safdar Hussain and Sri Y. Chenchanna in accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an . -tl:F - 29 SN, J wP 6627'2019 opp,ortunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate reasoned order, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shalll be no order as to cost. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. ,TTRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. 2

3. 4.

5. BN GJP qgr HIGH COURT PIDATED: 0711012025 \. \ -\- ? tii.i{-E ORDER WP.No.6627 of 2019 \lt t\lt (, .i + t- c)o g

1. ,4. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS coQ\?