A. Vidya Sagar v. The State of Telangana

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 suspend all further proceedings in pursuance of the Charge Memo No.G2l31205/2016 dt. 24-072017 by the 2nd Respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP. NO:3 6113 0F 2017) 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 respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer in the ECE in Zone-VI as per his seniority while giving posting orders lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Between: Secretariat, Hyderabad

1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, 2. The Commis6ioner of Technicat Educations, Govt. of Telangana, BRKR 3. The Principal, J.N. G'ovt. Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-SOO 0'13. Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 063. AND ,..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS A. Vidya Sagar, S/o. Sri A. Subrahmanyam, aged 52 ye19' Occ Lecturer,-JN. Govt. Polytethnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-s00 01 3, No. H.No.12-2-7251 4, Plot No.4, P and T Colony, Rethi Bowli, Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad-S00 028 pet t on under sect on 1bi cPC pray ns ;Tr:J::::::::':J:: in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order Dated: 30-01-2018 in W.P.M.P.No.36112 of 2017 in W.P.No.29033 of 2017 and dismiss the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. B. VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. B. ANNAPOORNA, GP FOR SERVICES I WP NO: 46035 OF 2018 Between: A- Vidyasagar, S/o Sri A. Subrahmanyam, aged 53 years, Occ ECE, Govt. Polytechnic, lsmailkhanpet, Sanga Reddy Dist. Lecturer in AND ...PETITIONER 1 2 The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Govt. of Telangana, Vidya Bhavan, Dargah Road, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or directions particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion as Senior Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering against the vacancy at Jawaharlal Nehru Govt. Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, though the Petitioner is Sl.No. at 1 of the seniority list of the Lecturers in ECE as arbitrary, illegal, and consequently direct the 2 respondent to promote the Petitioner against the existing vacancy at Jawaharlal Nehru Govt. Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad lA NO: 1 OF 2018 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 2no Respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion as Senior Lecturer in Electronics and Communication Engineering against the vacancy at Jawaharlal Nehru Govt. Polytechnic, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. B. VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: Smt. B. ANNAPOORNA, GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER -€,s,,,:J. ,// ,/ ,// THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION Nos.29O33 of 2OL7 and 46O35 of 2018 COMMON ORDER: In vier,v of the commonality of the issue and grievance, these Writ Petitions are analogously heard and taken up for disposal by way of this common order. For discussion, the facts in W.P.No.29O33 of 2Ol7 are taken as reference.

2. Petitioner joined the Department of Technical Education as Associate Lecturer in Electronics & Communication Engineering (ECE) on 3O.O7.1987 at Government Polytechnic for Women, Medak, and served continuously luntll 17.O7.2OOO, completing about 13 years of service. On 08.10.1999 and again on 17.O2.2OO0, petitioner applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to take up employment abroad under G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996. However, no decision approval or rejection was communicated, though several other lecturers, both senior and junior, were granted permission or regularized upon return. Some who left without permission were also allowed to rejoin. While posted at Q.0. Government Polytechnic, Hyderabad, the petitioner went on leave from 16.08.2000 to 2 NBKJ W.P. No.29033 of2Ol7 and bat.h

30.06.2005, submitting applications regularly. Earlier leave from 18.07.2000 to i5.08.2000 was sanctioned, and salary was paid. A charge memo dated O4.O2.2OO2 was issued but not served. A Show-Cause Notice dated 03.04.2002 was later issued, to which petitioner replied on 17.06.2002. Petitioner reported for dut5r on Ol.O7 .2OO5, but posting orders were issued only on 17.06.2009, after a delay of four years. The Department mistakenly treated petitioner's leave as exceeding five years, although it was not. As per G.O.Ms,No.214, Government permission is required only if leave exceeds hve years. Following Memo dated 31.O3.2OO7, the Department was advised to follow APCS (CCA) Rules. A Charge Memo dated

08.12.2OO8 alleged unauthorized absence from 18.07.2000 and petitioner replied on 06.01.2009. The Enquiry Officer's report dated 06.09.2010, communicated uide Memo dated

23.1O.2O1O, concluded that no official decision had been conveyed on the petitioner's leave or NOC requests. Despite ongoing correspondence, a fresh Charge Memo dated

24.07.2017 was issued, referring to 21 documents which were not supplied. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed challenging the fresh charge Memo dated 24.07.2OI7. /. NBKJ W.P, No.29O33 of2017 and batch

3. Heard Sri B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner ald Smt B.Annapoorna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of Writ Affidavit and contends that petitioner was already served with a show-cause notice dated O3.O4.2OO2 ' to which a reply was submitted on 17.06.2002. Latet, a charge Memo dated 08.12.2008 was issued, followed by a full enquiry, resulting in a report dated O6.09.2010. Without setting aside or concluding the earlier proceedings, issuing a fresh charge Memo on the same set of facts amounts to double jeopardy' which is impermissible under administrative law ald contrar5r to fair procedure. Therefore, prays this Court to set aside the fresh Charge Memo dated 24.07.2017.

4.'t . It is further submitted that the charge Memo dated O8.12.2OO8 is based on the erroneous assumption that petitioner overstayed beyond the permissible leave period. In fact, petitioner proceeded on sanctioned leave from 18.07.20OO 4 NBKJ W.P. No.29033 of20U and batch to 15.O8.2000 (for which salary was paid), and further leave from 16.08.2000 to 30.06.2005, making the total period less than five years. As per G.O.Ms.No.214, dated 03.09.1996, prior Government permission is required only where leave exceeds hve years. Hence, the petitioner's absence carnot be construed as unauthorized or in violation of service rules. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the charge Memo dated 08.12.2OOa also be set aside.

5. Learned Government Pleader filed a counter-affidavit stating that petitioner had admitted that during his sanctioned leave period, he went abroad for a few years to meet certajn hnancial obligations. However, he did so without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, which is a violation of service rules. The Enquiry Ofhcer, in his report dated

08.09.2010, found that the charge of unauthorized absence was proved, stating that petitioner had left the country without prior approval. At the same time, the report also acknowledged that the Department had not communicated any rejection of the petitioner's leave applications or issued any directive requiring him to report back to duty. Subsequenfly, the l"t respondent, -// '1,1, NBKJ w.P. No.29033 of 2017 and hatch through Memo dated 29.O8.2O1,2, directed the 2"d respondent to frame charges afresh ald to enstlre that no procedural lapses occurred in the conduct of the enquiry under Rule 20 of the APCS (CCA) Rules, 1991. Following these instructions, the

2.d respondent issued a fresh charge Memo dated 24.07.2017, initiating disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the petitioner's contention that only his case was denied favorable consideration is factually incorrect. Several other similarly placed lecturers, including seniors, were also not permitted to go abroad or rejoin service due to the shortage of ECE lecturers, which was affecting the academic interest of students. Hence, no discrimination was shown to the petitioner. Moreover, after applying for hatf-pay leave from 18.07.2000 to

15.08.2000, petitioner did not report back to ofhce, despite several instructions and reminders issued by the department. Crucially, he also failed to disclose that he was residing abroad, which indicates a mala f,rde intention to avoid future disciplinary consequences. This conduct amounts to unauthorized absence and is in clear violation of Para 5(10) of G.O.Rt.No.214, dated 03.O9.1996, which mandates that: a 6 NBX,.I W.P. No.29033 of2017 and hatch "T'le Gouentment seruant should obtain specific perrnission from the Gouentment before h.e undertakes ony emplog ment abroad. " While disciplinarSr proceedings were ongoing, petitioner fiIed WPMP No.36113 of 2Ol7 in W.p.No.29O33 of 2017, requesting promotion to the post of Senior Lecturer in ECE, Zone-VI and this Court, by its interim order dated l4.O9.2O17 , directed the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation dated 22.O8.2077 in accordance with law. The petitioner also filed LA.No.1 of 2018 in W.p.No.46035 of 2O78, seeking promotion against a vacancy at JNGp, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. In view of the Court,s interim directions, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer and posted at GIOE, Secunderabad. In conclusion, since the charges framed against the petitioner were found to be proved, the action of the 2"a respondent in initiating disciplinary proceedings based on the directions of the 1"t respondent is valid, lawful, ald in accordance with service rules and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions and vacate the said interim orders 1 IISK,J W.P- Nc,.29033 oi 2017 and brlch

6. On perusal of the record, it is clear that the charge N{emo dated 08. \2.2OOA was followed by a reguiar dcpartmental enquiry, culminating in an enquiry report dal.eci 06'O9 20 10' While the charge lr'as held to be proved, the trnquiry Officer also recorded that the Department had faiLed to conemunicate its decision on the petitioner's leave ar.rd NOC applications and had not issued any direction requiring him to reporl irack for dr.rt1.' Despite the conclusion of those proceedinqs, a fresh chargc Memo dated 24.07 .2017 was issuecl on the same set oi facts' without setting aside or annulling the earlier cnqulr)-' Thc issuance of a second charge Memo in such circ''rmstances violates the principles of natural justice and atnounts to dor-ib1e jeopardy, u'hich is impermissible under settLecl principles of administrative law. Once an enquiry has been condt-icied at-rii a finding recorded, the respondents cannot lndehniteiv rccpcn disciplinary proceedings on identical grounds li urat be ftir'ihel noted that petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer in pursuant of interim directions of this Court ard there is no material on record to suggest that he supprcssed any relevant facts while seeking such promotion - Accordingly' I 8 NBK,J W.P- No.29033of2017 and batch this Court is of the considered view that the charge Memo dated

24.O7 2017 is unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside. 7 . Accordingly, rhe Charge Memo dated 24.O2 .2017 is hereby set aside and the Writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to conduct enquiry with regard to the charge Nlemo dated OB.l2.2OOB rvithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate order-s in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. I\4iscellaneous appiications, if any pending, shall stand ciosed To, Sdi- K. AMMAJI PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 063.

1. The Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat, T.S-Hyderaba 2. The Comhrissioner oi Teihnical Educations, Govt. of Telangana, BRKR 3. The Principal, J.N. G-o\t. Polytechnic, Ramanthapul Hyderabad-SOO 013. 4. One CC td SRl. P. B. VIJAY KUMAR, Advocate [oPUC] S. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies BM PVL HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 .r.-, ,: , ,:. r'; a t . ( ,4- r.)\t -\.\\\ r.{. /'.." i -l) ) 02 sEP 2025 COMMON ORDER a. Writ Petition Nos: 29033 Of 2017 And 46035 Of 2018 DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS w-u_) t) )?