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 order, direction or writ more particularly one in the natuie of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ to declafe that the impugned Governmenl Memo No. 8680A/ng A.1t2015-4, dated 12-7-2021 and Re.-No. 3802110-E2, dated 23-3-2022 are bad in law as they are used only to circumvenl lhe orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.p. No.247S of 200g, dated 23-6-2009 without any new grounds or notice to the petitioner and much against the recorded finding in the enquiry and to set aside the same 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 pleased to suspend the Government Memo No. 8680A/ng A.1|2O1S-4, dated 12-7-2021 and Re. No. 3802/10-E2, dated 23-3-2022 with further directions to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation to drop punishment vide his representation dated 21 -1 1 -2023 Counsel for the Petitioner: SR \ Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. K' SWATHI AGP FOR SERVICES lll The Court made the following: ORDER / THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.6297 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learr.red counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.K.Swathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents ald perused the material on record

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Development Oflrcer (Handlooms and Textilesl on 26.06.1996 ald according to the Special Rules, the Commissioner and Director is the appointing and Disciplinary authority. A charge memo dated

27.09.2011 containing six charges, was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on

19.11.2001, and the enquiry against the petitioner regarding the charges concluded with the linding that charge Nos. 1,4,5 and 6 were proved, while charge Nos.2 and 3 were not proved. Respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice dated 16.09.2003, directing the petitioner to give an explanation before taking any disciplinary action. Thereafter, dismissal order was issued against the petitioner in terms of Rule 9 (x) of APCS (CCA) I 2 .-\-.1 Rules, 199 1 uide Rc.No.3B45/2OO1.-83, dated 15.03.2005 in the said departmental proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that challenging the said dismissal order, the petitioner filed O.A I i No.2949 of 2006 before the then Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the sarne was allowed on 25.01.2007 on the lollowing ground: " no third party like the Vigilance Commisstoner or the Gouernment can dictate the Dbciplinary Authoitg or the Appellate Authoritg as to how theg should exercbe their. pou.ter and what punishment can be imposed on a delinquent offtcel. 4 . Challenging the said order, respondent No. 1 filed W.P.No.2475 of 2OO8 belore the division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, but the sarne was dismissed on

23.06.2OO9 with the following observation: "The tibunal hauing obserued thot tle impugned ord-ers haue been passed at the behest of the Gouemment issued uide memo doted 09.03.20O5 and the disciplinary authoitg has committed a juisdictional error in passing such orders bg abdicating its powers in fauour of the Gouemment set aside the impugned proceedings and consequential proceedings, hotueuer, obserued that the lst pstitioner is at Iiberty to pass appropiate orders bg toking independent decision. 3 We do not find ang illegalitg in th-e order passed bll the Tribunal in the said O.A No.2949 of 2006. Hence, u-te dismiss the utrit petition confirming the direction gtuen by the Tribunal for reconsideratton of the matter and to take independent decision. Hotueuer, ue make it clear that anA fresh order passed shall be effectiue from the date of oiginal order. Until the passing of final orders, the respondent shall continue to be under suspen-sion"- 5 a Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as consequence, respondent No.2 issued proceedings 1n Rc.No.8077 / 2006- E3, dated 22. 12.2OO9 taking a Indepepdent decision of imposing a penalty of withholding (3) annual grade increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner while reinstating him into service w.e.f. 15.03.2005.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that on his appeal against the punishment orders dated 22.12.2009, respondent No.1 modified the sarne to withholcling three increments with cumulative effect to withholding three increments without cumulative elfect vide Memo No.8680/Vig.A2l2Ol5-1, dated 16.O2.2016. Subsequently, respondent No.12 also reconsidered the regulari zation of the I suspension period lrom 18.03.2005 to 22.12.2009 as spent on duty without anr, financial benefits in view of the above facts. 4 l-. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the release of increments and regularization of pay as per F.R was also issued vide orders dated 19.09.2076 on respondent No.2.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on

30.O4.2019, the Government decided to reopen the entire issue of the record of the petitioner as suo-motto under Rule 4O of TCS (CCA) Rules, 199 1 without there being any new material or complaint and respondent No.2 was directed to furnish the enquiry proceedings held against the petitioner ih the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in the year 20O5 vide proceedings dated 3O.O4.2O19. Then, respondent No.2 sent the entire record of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner to the Government also enclosing the petitioner's protest representation citing the {indings in his case as on 2006, Rc.No.8O77l06-E3, dated 28.09 .2006, addressed to the Deputy A.G. Inspector, Circle-I, Hyderabad that "No misappropriation has been detected and no recovery has been proposed in this case". 9 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 5 2I.I1.2O23 to drop punishment against him. But the respondent authorities did not consider the same. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition

10. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and in the light of the Rule 4O of TCS (CCA) rules, it is apparent that the representation of the petitioner was way back in the year 2023 directing the petitioner to make fresh representation to respondent Nos' 1 and 2 along with representation dated 21.11.2023. Upon such fresh representation, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six (06) weeks thereafter.

11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. To, \ //TRUE COPY' SD/-P. PADMANABHA REDDY \ Q\EPUTY REGISTRAR \'t, ioat,on oFFrcER I 1 The Secretary to Government (H and T), lndustries Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad nd Commerce

2. The Commissioner, and Director of Handlooms And Textiles and Apparels Exports Parks. Telangana State, Hyderabad

3. The Additional Director (H and T), Telangana State, Hyderabad. I 7 One CC to SRl. R V MALLIKARJUNA RAO Advocate TOPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES lll ,High Court for the State of Telangana Two CD Copies / 4 5 o KKS BS b HIGH COUR-T \ \ DATED:1210'.112025 ORDER WP.No.6297 of 2025 t$E s14r( ( (-) 1E APN X6 6( Z !-)A ofsnAI cHeO t DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -lBo)'