Heard Sri v. Ravichandran

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the 2nd Respondent in imposing the punishment stoppage of three (3) annuar grade increments with cumulative effect without assigning any reasons, vide cclA,s pRocGS. No. vs(ll)(2)120312019 dated o4to1t2o23 based on the erroneous findings of the Enquiry officer, as being arbitrary, iilegar, irrationar, grossry disproportionate to the allegations said to have been proved and in violation of Article 14 of the constitution of lndia and set-aside the same accordingly and further be pleased to declare that the petitioner is entifled to be sanctioned increments with attendant benefits in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 the operation the impugned order issued by the 2nd Respondent vide CCLAs PROCGS NO VS (11)(2)120312019 dated 04101t2O23 retease increments. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under S'ection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite the hearing of W.P. No. 12447 ot 2023 by fixing an early date. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. RAVICHANDRAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRTT PETITION No.1 2447 of2023 ORDER: ' This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is Itled seeking the following relief: "...to r'ssue dn appropiate Wnl, Order or Dvection more parTicularlg one_in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the aition of thL 2"dRespondent in imposing the puntshment stoppagi ol three (3) annual grad.e increments uith cumulatiue eJfect without aisigning anA reasons, vtde cctA's PROCGS. NO. VSI\2/2O3/2o19 dated oi_ot zozs bosed on |he eroneous fi.ndings of the Enqtiry Officer, as being arbitrary, illegal, trational, grosslg disproportionate to the allegations said to haue bZelr prou_ed. and in utolation of Articte 14 of the Constitution of India ond set_ a-side the same accordinglg and furlher be pleased to d.eclare that tle petittoner i-s entitled to be sqnctioned increments with attendant benefits in the interest of justice and to pass. . ." 2- The case of the petitioner is that wh e he was working as Tahs dar at Chennur, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him vide proceedings dated 2L.06.20r9 issued by respondent No.2 and tbur charges were leveled against him pertaining to two erroneous entries during digitization of the revcnue records, which caused revenue loss to the Government. As such, he was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 27.06.2O19. Subsequently, after conducting a detailed enquiry, he was initially imposed with a punishment of compulsory retirement from service, then, reduction to lower post i.e., Naib Tahsildar, and ultimately, he was imposed with the impugned punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumurative effect vide ccl.A's proceedings 2 PK, J W.P.No.12447 of 2O23 No.VSII(2)/ 20 312019 datcd O4.01.2023. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is hled.

3. Heard Sri V. Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing lor the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 had omitted to consider that the petitioner was placecl as in-charge at Nirmal (U) unit in addition to his regular posting at Nirmat (n) unrt ana that on ly two errors occurred unknowingly out of the 2l ,7 66 rcvente Khatas and there is no intentional lapse on the part of the petitioner so as to constitute mtsconduct. Further, respondent No.2 had also omitted to consider that the Enquiry Officer gave a categorical finding that no revenue Ioss is caused to the Government. It is further contended that respondent No.2 ought to have considercd that it was the petitioner who brought the lapses to the notice of the superior ofhcer and got the entries blocked, since he was not vested with the said power. Further, the hndings of the Enquiry Officer are based on surmises as the same would start the expression, 'appears that', and thus, it is settled law that no punishment can be imposed based on surmises and conjunctures. As such, the hndings of the Enquiry Officer are erroneous, and any punishment based on such findings would be equally initiated. f 3 PK, J W.P.No.l2447 oI 2023

5. It is further contended that respondent No.2 ought to have considered that even the Enquiry Officer held that it was only an error on the part of the petitioner, ald imposing a major penalty of stoppage of annual grade three increments with cumulative effect is grossly disproportionate to the nature of a-regations held to have been proved, that too, when the petitioner has less than two years of service. F\rther, both the Enquiry Officer and respondent No.2 had omitted to note that the petitioner did not issue the pattadar passbooks in respect of subject land and the frndings of the Enquiry Officer in this regard are quite erroneous artd the punishment imposed on the petitioner is highly vitiated. Therefore, the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumu lative effect erroneous findings of respondent No.2 on the basis of Officer is illega.l, arbitrary, unjust, disproportionate to the nature of allegations held to have been proved and contrary to the provisions of Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, and also in violation of Article 14 0f the constitution of India. Therefore, rearned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the present writ petition. the Enquiry imposed by

6. Per cor.tra, the learned Government Leader for Services_I appearing for the respondents contended that due to the irregularities committed by I 4 PK, J W-P.No.12447 oJ 2O23 the petitioner, he was placed under suspension vide order dated

21.06.2019 passed by respondent No.2 arrd an Article of Charge, vide proceedings dated 21.06.2OI9, was also issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, he submitted his explanation, but having been dissatisfied with the said explanation, the respondents appointed the Joint Collector, Nirmal District, as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations lcveled against the petitioner. After conducting a detailed cnquiry, the Enquiry Ofhcer submitted his report, holding the charges against the petitioner as proved. Basing on the said enquiry ."po.t, , major punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the petitioner vide proceedings dated 13.O3.2O2O. Holever, aggrieved by the saicl punishment order, the petitioner frled W.P.No.7203 of 2O2O before this Court, and this Court vide order dated 2a.O5.2O2O, directed the respondent to re consider the punishment order issued by respondent No.2 dated 13.O3.2O2O, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. As such, in compliance of the said order of this Court, respondent No.2 examined the case of the petitioner and awarded the penalty of reduction to a lower post r.e., Deputy Tahsildar vide proceedings dated

31.O7.2O2O, in terms of Rule 9 of the CCA Rules 1991. Thereafter, the petitioner oncc again approached this Court and filed W.P.No.13199 of 2020 assailing the punishment order dated 31.07.2020, and this Court 1, 5 PK, J w.P.No. 12447 of 2023 vide order dated 3O.12.202 l, set aside the said punishment order, holding that it was contra-ry to Rule 9 (vii)(b) of CCA Rules.

7. It is further submitted that that the respondents filed an appeal against the order of this Court before a Division Bench of this Court vide W.A.No.242 of 2022, and the Division Bench, vide judgment dated

06.O9.2022, while declining to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, directed the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order of punishment in respect of the petitioner herein, strictly in accordance with Iaw, keeping in view the observations made by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in compliance of the said judgment, and after examining the Article of Charge, explanation submitted by the petitioner and the hndings of the Enquiry Officer, the impugned penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner vide impugned order dated O4.01 .2023 that was imposed in accordance with Rule 9 (vi) of CCA Rules, 1991. As such, the respondents are justified in issuing the impugned order dated 04.OI.2023. It is further contended that the petitioner has filed the present petition without availing an alternative remedy available under law. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

8. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. 1 6 PK, J W.P.No.12447 of 2023

9. A perusal of the rccord discloses that the petitioner is assailing the impugned order dated 04.O1.2023 passed by respondr:nt No.2, whereby, the petitioner was subjccted to a major penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments u,ith cumulative effect. However, as can be seen from the record, the petitioner hzrs approached this Court filing the present writ petition, without first availing/exhausting the alternative remedy of filing an appeal, as per Rule 33 of the CCA Rules, 1991, bcfore the appellate authority as per Rule 34 of the CCA Rules, 1991. The relevant portion of the said Rules is extracted hercunder: "Orders against whrc}r appeal lies

33. (1) Subject to the provisions of rrle 32 a Government servant may prefer an appeal, as hereinafter providcd, against all or any of the following orders, namely:- (ii) an ordcr imposing any of the penalLLes specified in rule 9 or rulc I O whether made by the disciplinary authorrty or b-y an appeuate or revising authority;" "Appellate authoritics:

34. (1) A Government Servant, including a person who has ceased to be in (iovernment service, may prefer an appeal against all or aly of thc orders specified in rule 33 to the authorities as follows: (ii) An appeal from an order irnposing on a member of a state service anv of the penalties specified in rule 9 or placing such mt:mber under suspension under rule 8 passed by the Head of the Department sha-ll lie to the Government ancl an appeal from an order passed by a lower authority shall lie to the Head of the Departmenl." t 7 PK, J W.P.No. 12447 oI 2023

10. It is also a well-settled principle of iaw that when arr alternative remedy is available, the Courts refrain from exercising their writ jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Ra;dha Krishnan Ind,ustries v. Sto:te o! Himachdl Prcrdesht, summarized. the following principles on the maintainability of a writ petition before the High Court: "27. The principles of law which emerge are that:

27.1. The pouer under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue uits can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fund.amentol ights, but for ang other purpose as well.

27.2. The High Court ha.s the discretion not to enteftain a utrit petition. One of the restictions placed on the power of the High Court is uhere an effectiue altemate remedy is auailable to the aggrieued person.

27.3. Exceptions to the ntle of altemate remedg anse uhere : (a) the utit petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected bg Part III of the Coltstitutton; (b) there has been a uiolation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are whollg without jurisdiction; or (d) the uires of a legislation is challenged-

27.4. An alternate remedy bg itself does not diuest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropiate c<7se though ordiaaily, a urit petttion should not be entertained uhen qn elficacious alternate remedg is prouided bg laq-

27.5. When a right is created bg a statute, which itsef prescribes the remed.g or procedure for enforcing the rigV or liabilitg, resorl must be had to thc't patticlllat statutory remedg before invoking the discretionary remedg under Article 226 of the. Constitutiott This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a ruLe of policg, conuenience and discretion.

27.6. In cq.ses where there are di-sputed questtons of fact, the High Coutt mag decide to decLine Jurisdiction in a LUit petition. However, tf the High Court is objectiuelA of the view that the nature of the controuersg requires the exerctse of its wil Jurisdiction, such q uieu would. not readily be interfered with. | (2O2t) 6 SCC 771 8 PK, J W.P.No.12447 of 2O23

11. Furthermore, in M/s. Srini Phartno,ceuticals Put. Ltd. u. Union oJ Indid, a Division Bench of this Court has specifically held that the writ jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked if there is al efficacious alternative remedy available to the aggrieved party. As such, this Court is not inclined to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

12. In that view of thc matter, since the petitioner has not utilized the altemative remedy of liling an appeal before respondent No. 1, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present Writ Petition granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before respondent No. 1 against the impugned punishment order dated O4.O1.2O23 passed by respondent No.2, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in which event, respondent No. 1 shall decide the appeal on merits ald pass approprizrte orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance witl-r law, and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. 22O2O SCC Onlrnc 'lS 3396 w ,/b 9 PK, J W.P.No.12447 of 2023

13. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSTS AHr ReclsrRnR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary to Govemment' Revenue Department' State of ' iiiiun'si;i,'Secretariat, i s Hvderabad' 2. The Chief Commissioner' of Land Administration and Chief Secretary to ' co"r"iirdnt, Telangana Siate' Hyderabad' 3. The District Collector, Komurambheem Asifabad District' 4. One CC to SRI V RAVICHANDRAN' Advocate [OPUC] 5 Two CCs to GP for Services-l' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYderabad lOUTl

6. Two CD Copies MP BS HIGH COURT DATED:31 10112025 1$E sl > ..<'t 2 1 rEB ?$25 i-' k ,1 c ,J .4. \" \ ORDER WP.No.12447 ot 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a /z ,/1,