B.Amrutha v. '1 . The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.R.TAGORE Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER ; THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.9O27 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking thc following relief: u...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein more particularly the 2"d respondent in issued the impugned C harge Memo. Rc. No.55O6/VC- A/2O24, d,aLed,24 l2-2O24, after 18 years from thc datc of incident without any basis and also the Proceedings in contrary to Rc.No.2762 /82 /MS/ DM&HO / Nzb/2O13, dated 30-5-2014 issued by the than 4ut respondent and also in violation of Rule 20 {3] of CCA Rules, as the charge mcmo is very r,ague, baseless and not specific and consequentiallj, the llon'ble Court may pleased to set aside the impugncd charge Memo. Dated 30-5 2014, with a further direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner as Asst. Director [Admn] as per the final eligibility list of Administrative Officers, prepared vide Proc. No.3O8Oi CAD/ MZ- l/2O24, dated.2A- lO 2024 and mav pass..."

2. Heard Sri M.R. Tagore, Iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant on 3O.O7.1999, and was subsequently, promoted as Senior Assistant, Superintendent and Administrative Officer on i8. 11.2006, 3O.O4.2O18 ar..d O1.O9.2O22, respectively, and while working as Administrative Ofhcer in the H- 2 PK, J W.P.No.9027 of 2O25 Government College of Nursing, Nizamabad, respondent No.2, vide proceedings datcd 28. 10.2024, called for the service particulzrrs of (33) eligible Administrative Ofhcers for their promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Admn). The petitioner's name was placed at Sl.No. 17 in thc said list, and at present, there are about (20) vacancies available in the cadre of Assistant Director' (Admn) in Multi Zone-\, and later. vide proceedings dated O5.11.2024. the Principal of Govcrnment School of Nursing, Nizamabad, submitt.ed thc scrvice particulars of the petitioner, including no charges certificate. As such, the petitioner is fully qualified, eligible and entrtled for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Admn). Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.92 dated O5.O3.2025, constituting a Departmental Promotion Committee for effecting promotions. However, while the petitioner's case for promotion was under active consideralion, she was issued with the impugned Charge Memo dated

24.12.2024 by respondent No.2, on the vague ald baseless allegations of misconduct, illegality, cheating, corruption, theft of service register, original personal file and service documents of one deceased Government employee, Late Md. Ishaque, MPHA (M), CHC, Dharpalli. Y / 3 PK, J W.P.No.9027 of 2025

4. It is submitted that the aforesaid allegations have arisen out of the incidents aliegedly occurred almost (18) yea-rs ago, but the charge memo has been issued against the petitioner belatedly. Despite the same, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation, on 17 .O1.2O25, denying the charge. lt is also submitted that the allegation leveled against the petitioner is rvholly lalse and baseless. The petitioner, while rvorking as Senior Assistant, was transferred and posted at the offrce of the DMHO vide proceedings dated 07.O7.2012. Accordingly, she joined duty on 13.07.2012, and was allotted to '85' section, which contained the files pertaining to the MPHA (M) and MPHS (M) working at CHC, Dharpalli. However, the edsting Senior Assistant, Mr. Lateefuddin Mujahed, failed to handover the charge to the petitioner, and therefore, she submitted her representation dated

30.07.2012. As such, on 06.08.2012, in the presence of the then Administrative Officer, Mr. P. Devasahayam, and Ofhce Superintendent, Mr. N. Rajeswara Rao, total of (235) employees' hles were handed over to the petitioner. However, the subject frle of the deceased employee, Late Mohd. Ishaque, was not available among the said files. It was submitted that the said individual has been absconding from duties from 15.O8.1985 to 31.08.2006 (deemed date of retirement), and even prior to the transfer and posting of the I 4 PKJ W'.P.No.9D7 o.l 2D5 petitioner to CHC. Dharpalli, the file of the deceased was not available in 'E5' section. As such, ncither the petitioner nor her predocessor had the possession of the hle belonging to the deceased.

5. lt was furthcr submitted that the petitioner \\'.1s subsequently shifted from'tr5'Section vide proceedings dated 1O.10.2014, and she had handed over the charge to Mr. K. Praveen Kumar, Junior Assistant, on 10.1 1.2014, without any files pending with her. As such, the peLitioner, who worked at the 'E5' Section from 30.07.2014 to t O.1 i.2O I4. had no allegations or remarks elgi{nst her, and thercafter. she \\,as promoted as Office Supcrintendent and Administrative ()[ficer. However, while her namc is under active consideration lor promotion to the post of Assistant Director, the respondents have issued the present impugned Charge Memo dated

24.12.2024 alter (i8) years of the alleged incident, ir-rtentionally to deprive her of the legitimate right of promotion as Assistant Director, which is rvhollv illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violativc o[ principles of natural justice. 'Iherefore, learned counsel prays this Court to set aside the impugned Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024, with a conscquential clirection to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Direclor (Admn) as per the etigibilily list dated 2A.1O.2024. Y , 5 PK, J W.P.No.9027 of 2025

6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the dcpartmental records indicate that the subject file of late Md. Ishaque, MPHA (M), went missing during the tenure of the petitioner and her predecessors only. As such, in view of the said disappearance of the original service records, and suspicion of manipulation of documents and allegations of corruption, based on thc specific directions of the Government, and the Vigilance and Dnforccment Report, the present Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024 has bcen issued against the petitioner. However, thc delay, as alleged by the petitioner, is purely due to the complexity o[ the issue and the administrativc difficulties in collecting the data, not attributable to the Departmental alone. It was further submitted that petitioner's explanation to the Charge Memo, dated 17 .O7.2O25, has been received ald after considering the same, it has been decided to forward it to respondent No.l Office, for the appointment of an enquiry ofhcer to enquire into the charges lramed against the individuals involved in the said incident. It was lurther submitted that mere promotions do not entitle an automatic exemption from the disciplinary action, especially, when the allegations relate to serious 6 PK, .] W.P.No.9027 of 2025 irregularities like corruption, etc. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

7. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusai ol material on record, this Court is of the view that the prescnt writ petition concerns trvo distinct reliefs, i.e., quashing of Charge Memo dated

24.12.2024, and a direction to the respondents to consider the pctitioner's case for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Admn).

8. [t is pertinent to note that the charge leveled against thc petitioner vide Charge Memo dated 24.12.2024, pertains to the alleged irregllarities concerning the disappearance oi service records ol one latc Md. lshaquc, MPHA (M), CHC, Dharpalli. The said charge is extracted trercunder: "That Smt.B.Armutha, formerly Senior Assistant O/o. DI\{ & H(), Nizamabad presently working as Administrative Ofllcer at Government School of Nursing, Nizamabad Distri(,t, gross misconduct / Service, illegality / cheaLing / corruption and theft of service Register, original personal file and scn'ice documents of deceased Govt. Employee of late Mohtl Ishaque, MPHA (M), CHC, Dharpalli. Thereby, she failed to maintain absolute integrity, disciplinc and devotion to duty and exhibited behavior unbecomrng of a Government Servant and violated Rule 3-B of TSCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964." 1 PK, J W.P.No.9O27 o[ 2025

9. According to the petitioner, the alleged incident had occurred almost eighteen years before the issuance of said Charge Memo; that she was never in the custody of the subjecr hle; and that she had duly handed over charge, when she was transferred from the concerned scction in the year 2014. However, the petitioner contends that the impugned Charge Memo has been issued at a highly belated stage, only to deprive her of the right to promotion as Assistant Director (Admn).

10. [t is well-settled that the scope of judicial review in mattcrs concerning disciplinary proceedings is very limited, more particularly, challenge to a cha-rge memo is considered premature, since it only the first step in the disciplinar5r proceedings, which may not be interlered with by this Court unless the same is issued by an authority that lacks the jurisdiction or is ex facie unsustainable. The Hon'ble Apex Courl, in Union oJ India u. Kunisettg Satyanoragancl, has categorically held that no writ lies against a charge memo or show- cause notice, unless some rare and exceptional circumstances are madc out. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: I (2006) 12 SCC 28 8 PK, J W.P.No.9U7 of 2025 '13. It rs r,r'ell scttled bv a series of decisions of this Court thal ordinaril_v no rrrit lies against a charge-sheet or shou -cause notrce vidc l'--{ecritile Engineer, Bihar State Houslng I}oard v. Remesh Kttrnar singh [(1996) I SCC 327 : JT (1995) 8 SC 331] Specral Director \'. Itlohd. Glnrlarn Ghouse l{2OO4) 3 SCC 44O : 20O4 SCC (Cri) 826 : AtR 2004 SC 14671 , Uagappa v. Diuisiorrctl Commr., MtFore I(2001) I0 SCC ')391 , Stote of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma l(19871 2 SCC 179 : (1987) 3 ATC 319 : AIR 1987 SC 9431 , etc. 1-1. The reason why ordinarily a rvrit petition should not be entertained against a mere shorv-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition mav be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or shor'-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action. because it does not arnount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any partl, unless the same has been isstred by a person h:rving no jurisdiction to do so. lt is quite possil)le that after considering thc reply to the show-cause notice or alter holding an enqurr-\ the aulhoriq' concerncd ma1' drop the proceedings and/or hold that thc charges are not established. [t is well settlcd that a writ pctition lies rthen some right o[ anY party is infringed. A mere shorv- cause notice or charge-shcet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is on[1 *'hcn a final order imposing some punishment or otheruise ad!ersr:l]' affccting a partv is passed, that the said part! can be said to hav'' an\ grievance.

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionarl' jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily lrc exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge-sheet.

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court ,.an quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if rt is found to lle rvholly \\-ithout jurisdiction or Ior some other reason if it is rvholly illegal. Houever, ordinarily thc High Court should not interfere irl such a miit1cr." 1 1. In the rnstant case, although the charge memo has been issued belatedly aftcr almost (18) years of occurrence of the incident, this delay, inter alia rnay not render the charge memo as invalid, as the nature of alleged against the petitioner is serious and grave. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has also submitted her explanation dated 17.O1.2O25, and it is within the domain of the A, -L / I I PK, J W.P.No.9O27 ol2025 discipiinary authority to consider the said explanation, and only thereafter, take a decision whether to proceed further or not, as it deems it fit and proper. Therefore, this Court finds not justiliable reason to interfere with the impugned Charge Memo dated

24.t2.2024.

12. As regards the relief with respect to her promotion, it is relevant to note that the petitioner's name was included at Sl. No. 17 in the eligibility list dated 28.IO.2O24 and the Departmental Promolion Committee r'vas constituted under G.O.Rt.No.92 dated 05.03.2025. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner is lu1ly qualilied and eligible for promotion. However, the only ground for not considering her case is the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court have consistently hcld that in matters, where disciplinary action is initiated belatedly, the case of an employee for promotion shall not be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings, particularly when such delay in initiation of proceedings is not attributable to the employee. 10 PK, J W.P.No.9027 of 2025 r 1t+- In vierv of [he above, this Court deems appropriate to direct the respondents to consider thc case of the petitioner for promotion without referencc to thc pendency of Charge Memo.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposcd ol directing the respondents to consider the case ol the petitioncr for promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Admn) as per the final eligibiiity list of Administrative Officers dated 2A.1O.2024, during the ensuing promotion cor.rnseling, without reference to the pen(lency of Charge Memo in Rc. No. 5506 /VC - A I 2024 / 7 220 dated 24. 12.2024. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closerl. No costs "i',$'ti.-lS[ttsTS'EiR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// '" ',. ,n" Principal Secret; e **gfr:q.it*tlH*+''gw*:::ffi ", Hvderabad [OUTI PSK. o. Trfuo CD CoPies w CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:1211112025 ORDER WP.No.9027 of 2025 t * cHEI 15 iloll Afi z * ATC\I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ' ^..*1^ \Al-^< -6-**