Komati Chandrasekhar v. Building Department, Secretariat Buildings

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 a Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ order or direction, to declare the impugned charge memo of the 1st Respondent bearing No.3329lVll2O17-1, dated 27111/2017,continuing the disciplinary proceedings for a long time against the petitioner, though he retired from service on 30/1 112O17 is totally illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutional and also to contrary to the directions of the Hon'ble Court in WP.No.9136/2018, dated 2010312018 apan from violation of Guideline issued in G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 0111112008 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings in simple matters within a period of three months and in complicated matters within a period of six months and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to release and pay pension and all other reteiremental benefits with interest, as otherwise the petitioner will but put to heavy and irreparable loss lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pay provisional pension and other retiremental benefits as per G.O.Rt.No.'1097, Fin and pig. Dept., dated 221O6t2000 to the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 'l . The Transport Commissioner, Telangana State, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 2. The State of Telangana, rep., by its principal Secretary. Transport, Roads and Building Department, Secretariat Buildings AND .....PETiT|oNERS/RESPONDENTS Komati Chandrasekhar, S/o. K.Laxmaiah, aged about 64 years, Motor Vehicle lnspector (Retired), 0/0 Hyderabad Central Zone, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER 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 vacate the lnterim order dated: 26.o2.2024 passed in w.p.No.4442 of 2024 and dismiss the Writ petition Counsel for the Writ Petitioner: SRt. RANGARAJULA RAJASEKHARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES I CONTEMPT CASE NO:882 oF 2024 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High court may be pleased to commit the Respondents for contempt of the Hon,ble court in not implementing orders passed in l.A.No.1 t2024 in w.p.No.444212024, dared 2610212024 willfully, wantonly disobeying the orders of the Hon'ble court and punish them suitably Between: Komati chandrasekh-ar, S/o. K.Laxmaiah, aged about 64 years, Motor Vehicre lnspector (Retired), O/o. Hyderabad CentratZone, ffraira[a-bid, liyd;;aba;. AND ...PETITIONER 1 2 Sri Dr.J-yothi Budha Prakash,.lAS, The Transport Commissioner, Telangana State, Khairatabad, Hyderabad Sri K.Sreenivaqa Raju, lAS, principal Secretary, T, R and B Department, Secretariat, Hyderabdd, T.S.. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RANGARAJULA RAJASEKHARA RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER Y / 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETI TION No.4442 of 2o24 CONTEMPT CASE No.882 of2024 COMMON ORDER: Since the lis in both these matters is inter se re lated n ith cach other, they are taken up togcther and bcing ciisposed of by this common order. 2l The prcsenL Writ pelition is hled seeking the follru,ing relicf: "... 1o dcr:larc the itnpugncrl char-gc rnemo of the 1., Respondent bcaring No.3329 lVIl2Ol/ l, datcd 2T.ll.2Ol7, continuing lor a lor.rg timc against the petitioner, though he retircd from serwlce on 30/lll2Of i is totally illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and also contrar-y to tlre directions of the Hon,ble Court rn Wp.No.9136/201g, dated 20/a312O18 apart from violation. of Guidelir.re issued in (i.O.Ms.No.(r79, dated 01/ l1l2008 to concludc the disciplinary proceedings irr simple matters rvrthin a period of lhree ntonths and in complicated tnatters u,ithin a pcriod oI six rnontlrs an(i sct asrde thc samc and ccnscquently direct the Respondents to rclease and pay p<:nsion anrl tr)i other retirement benefits with interest, as othenvise thc pctitioncr u l| be put to llea!.\, and irreparable loss anrl to pass such other or der (,r or(lcrs as this Hon,ble Court may dcenrs fit just and proper in tl-t,t circumstances of the case.', 3) On 26.a2.2024 this Court while issuing notice before admission lo lhe rcspondents has issucd intcrirn (lirection to the respondents t' pay provisional pension and other retirement bcnelits to the petitioner as pcr G.O.Rt.No. 1O97, Finance & Planning Department, daLcd. 22.06.2O00, as cxpcditiouslv as ') PK. J W 4442-2024 & cc 882 20)a possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks [hereof. Alleging willful disobedience of the said order, the petitioner has Irled C.C. No.882 of 2024 4l Heard Mr. Rangarajula Rajasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Covernment Pleader for Services-l appearing for the respondents in both the cases. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while the petitioner was working as Motor Vchicle Inspector, he was placed under suspension on 07.08.2017 based on a preliminary enquiry report dated 29.O9.2017 . Subsequently, he was reinstated into service vide proceedings of. respondent No.2 vide G.O.Rt.No.643, dated 16.ll.2O17 . 'l'hereafter, a charge memo bearing No.3329 /VI12017-1, dated 27.11.2077, r,r.as issued to thc petitioner just three days prior lo his retirement alleging tha t he committed grave irregularities violating the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, by issuing inspection certiftcates for nine vehicles without physically inspecting the vehicles since the said vehicles were in Vijayawada at the time of registration. To the said charge memo, petitioner'has submitted a detailed explanation on 71.12.2017. Further, as there was no progress in the enquiry, the petitioner has approached this Court and hled W.P. No.9 136 of 2018 challenging the charge memo \ ; I I J PK, J wp 1412 20'2.1 er, c.c A82 2024 dated 27.11.2077. On 20.03.2018, the said wrir pctition was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to complete the enquiry wilhin a period of three months and also to release the provisional pe.sionary benefits and other benefits which are not dcpendcnt upon [he disciplinary proceedings. Thercafter, the respondents issued G.O.Rt.No.449, d,ated 24. 11.2022, appoinLing an Inquiry Olficer to conduct inquiry. Learned counsel has contended that inspite of the specific directions of this Court in the orrler darcd 20.03.2018 in W.p.No.9136 of 2O1g ro complerc the enquiry rr'ithrn a period of three months, the resporrdcnts havc not concluded thc disciplinary proceedings. Thcrcfore, he prayecl this Courl to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the charge memo dated 27.11.2017 and also to dircct the respondents to release the pension and r;ther rctirement benehts with interesL. 6) Pcr con,.ra, lhc learned Government pleader, on instructions, has submittcd that in pursuance to the chargc memo daled 27.ll.2Ot7, rhe trnquiry Officcr has ct-rncludcd the cnquiry, respondcn t N,r. I has submitted report to the Govcrnmcnr and hnal orders are ye1 to be passed in the matter. Therefore, it is praycd to dismiss thc u,rit petition. 7J This C,rurt has taken note of the submissions made by respective par-t1es and perused the material on record. I 8) -4- ,,p -c c q z -z oz c A cc _AAZ:;ial Before adverting to the merits of the case, challenging that earlier the petitioner has the Charge Memo No. t herein and in respondent it is to be seen lrled W.p.No.9136 ol 2018 dated 27.1I.2017 issued by Petition also present Writ ve ry same Charge Therefore, rhe Petitioner is challenging the Memo dated 27 .I1 .2O 17 . Present Writ petition is not marntainable on the ground of res judicata. Howevcr, having regard to the fact that in spite of submission of trnquiry Report, no final orders, are passed in the matter since March, 2024, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to pass final orders pursuant to the letter No.3329 /Vl/2017, daLed 04.O3.2O24, addressed by respondent No.1 as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of t*u rnu.rth" from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and settle his pension in accordance wtth 9) specifically Insofar as Contempt Casc is concerned, it is asserted by the learned Governmcnt plcader that the petitioner is being paid provisional pension. Horvever, the gratuity and commuted value of pension cannot be paid to the petitioner till the conclusion of the departmental or judicia.l proceedings. In view of the above made assertions, this Court does not find any willful - -:B:- : E---r=-rdlr.- -ira i I l l : :) i ) PIi, J wp,4142 2l)21 & cc 882 2024 disobr:dience on the part o[ the respondents. Therefore, the Contempt Case is closed. 10) In the resnlt, Writ Petition is disposed of and Contempt Case is closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sl-rall stand closed. No costs To, //TRUE COPY// SdL M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR t SECTION OFFICER

1. The Transport Commissioner, Telangana State, Khairatabad, Hyderabad 2. The Principal Secretary. Transport, Roads and Building Department, 3. One CC to SRl. RANGARAJULA RAJASEKHARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for the State of Telangana at T. S., Secretariat Buildings Hyderabad [OUTI

5. Two CD Copies BM PVL |' "+ HIGH COURT DATED:1910612025 iiiE S ] /O O ,( * 11 JUL zffi z .o * COMMON ORDER WP.NO.4442 0F 2024 AND CONTEMPT CASE NO. 882 OF 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS AND CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE )D