Gunda Kishore Kumar v. The State of Telangana

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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ.of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No 1 in issuing the G. O. Rt. No. 58 (MAUD, VIG lll) Dept, Dt. 10.02.2023 served through the 5th Respondent herein appending the articles of charges without issuing any Show Cause Notice and without any authority or jurisdiction, and also consequential G. O. Rt. No. 128 (MAUD, VIG lll Dept, Dt. 18.03.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, irrational and without permissible in law, instead of earlier prayer wherever it occurs in the WP No 12329 of 2023 and connected lAs therein in the interest of justice. (As per court order dated:- 1232912023 Yide l.A. 212025 in W.P. _No.1232912023 prayer is amended) lA NO: 't OF 2024 l}''r w' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c:ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to perrnit the Petitioner herein to file Additional Material Papers in WP No.12329 of 2023 tor better adjudication 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 Cour1. may be pleased to suspend the impugned order bearing G.O.Rt.No. 58 dt. 10-2-2023 issued by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thq High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file l.A,No. of 2023 in W.P.No.12329 <rt 2023 and passed orders in l.A.No.1 of 2023 inW.P12329 of 2023 and suspenrJ the G.O.Rt.No.58 dt;10.2.2023. lA NO: 3 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 direct the respondent no.6 gave promotion and increments tc the petitioner as per Rc.No. 1 0521E4.C12023 dt; 6.3.2023. 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 to suspend the G.O.Rt.No.128 (MA Et UD VIG-Ill), )ept., Dt: 18.03.2025 pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SM. M BHAGYASRI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SMT. R. MADHAVI LATHA, SC FOR THE SERVICE MATTERS OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION RAMAGUNDAM Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S and 6: AGP FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER - HON'BLE MRS 'USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o.12329 ot 2023 ORDER: Heard Smt. M. Bhagyasree, learned counse! appearing on behalf of petitioner, learned Assastant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behatf of respondent Nos.l to 3, Smt. R. Madhavi Latha, learned Standing Counsel for the service matters of Municipal Corporation, Ramagundam, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 and !earned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical Health and Family ptanning, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.S and 6. 2 The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: ".-.to pass a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.1 in issuing the G. O. l1t. No. 58 (MAUD, VIG III) Dept, Dt. 10.O2.2023 served through the 5th Respondent herein appending the articles of charges without issuing any Show Cause Notice and without any authority or jurisdiction, and also consequential G. O. Rt. No.128 (MAUD, VIG III Dept, Dt. 18.03.202!; as being illegal, arbitrary, irrational and without permissible in law, instead of earlier prayer wherever it occurs in the Wp No. \,/ \-l - 2 SN. J wP 12329 2023 12329 of 2023 and connected IAs therein in the interest of justice".

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner had been appointed as Health Assistant in the year 1999 and had been deputed to work under the control of the 5th respondent and had been discharging his duties diligently without any complaint. On 22.02.2015 the petitioner had been sent on deputation as Sanitary Inspector in the 4th respondent Municipal Corporation. On 12.0L.2021 the petitloner had been transferreC to his parental department i.e. Medical and Health Department pursuant to the orders passed in G.O.Ms.No.317 and posted at the office of the District Medical and Health Officer, PHC, Manakoindur. The petitioner received the impugned order bearing G.O.Rt.No.58, dated 10.02.2023 issued by the 1't respondent through the 5th respondent, wherein certain charges were framed against the petitioner alleging that while the petitioner was functioning as Sanitary Inspector on deputation in the 4th respondent Corporation, petitioner had submitted fake log books of sanitary vehicles, fake vehicle maintenance and fake bills for the fuel and caused financial loss to the Corporation. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the said allegation 3 SN, J wP 12329 2023 pertains to the period from August,2020 io December,2021 but tlre petitioner had taken charge on 22.A2.2015 iind worked till August, 2020. The charges framed against the petitioner are far from truth and without any iota of evidence as no show cause notice was served on the petitioner prior to isr;uance of the impugned G.O.Rt.No.sB, dated L0.02.2023, issued by the 1't respondent through the 2nd respondent to the petitioner herein and aggrieved by the same, petitioner approachec the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED TH E RECORD. (A) The co nter affidavit filed on e alf of resDon ent Nos.l to 4, in oarticula r Dara Nos.s and 6, are extracted hereunder: "5. It is submitted that 1st respondent issued GO Rt.No.58, MA & UD (Vig.III) Dept., Dated:tO.O2.2O23 franred articles of charges against the petitioner Sri G.Kishore Kurnar, the then Sanitary Inspector and directed to submit his written statement of defence within (15) days from the date oF receipt of the said G.O. But the petitioner had not submitted any explanation or defence statement against charges framed on him despite receipt of the copy of the G.O. It is submitted that the l't respondent is being the head of MA & UD Department, after receiving detailed enquiry report from Addl. Collector (LB), Peddapalli on allegations rnade against E \t-.i - 4 the petitioner had framed etitioner rt nl cha rqes to sub SN, J wP 12329 2023 aoainst the state ent within 15 davs of receiot of the CODr,.

6. rt s subm itted that the Detitioner wit out submittinq anv reolv to the G.O. t.No.5a. dated lo.o2.2 O23 filed the Dresent writ petition questioninq the issuanceof G.O. as i!leqal. Th ere are serious allegations raised against the petitioner and the Addl. Collector (LB), IAS enguired and found prima facie e,.,idence to conduct a detailed enquiry snd sub:-nitted the repot for higher officials. The writ petitioner with an intention to avoid the punishment and to escape from the enquiry proceedings filed the abbve writ petition by misrepresenting the facts.,, DISCUSSION AN D CONCLUSION: 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned G.O.Rt.No.58, dated L0.02.2023 issued to the petitioner is iliegal and is liable to be set aside on the ground that Articles of CharEes had been framed against the petitioner without issuing prior notice to the petitioner and, further on the ground thai it is falsely alleged that while petitioner was functioning as Sanitary Inspector on deputation in Ramagundam Municipal Corporation during the period August 2O2O to December 2021 the petitioner had submitted fake log books of sanitary vehicle and fake bills for the fuel and had .ffi- - 5 SN, J w 12329 2023 caused financial loss to Ramagundam Municipal ()orporation and further on the ground that the delay in issuing the impugned charge Memo G.O.Rt.No.58 dated lO.O2.2OZ3 in the year 2023 when the alleged irregularities pertain to the period August 2020 to December, 2O2l remained unjustified and unexplained by the respondents 1 and 2 herein and hence, l_he impugned proceedings G.O.Rt.No.58, dated LO.O2.2OZ3 needs to be set aside and the petitioner's case needs to be r:onsidered for promotion.

5. The learned Assistant Gove rnment Pleader on the other hand draws attention of this Cou rt to the imDuo ned orocee dinqs G.O. t.No.58. dated 1 0.02.2023 oarticul a rlv oar No.3 and a conte s that in spite of soecific directio n to the e itioner h ritten tem tofde 5 rla h date of the said orocee inqs G.O. Rt.No.58. dated 70.02.2023. further the learned Assistant Government pleader placing reliance on para No.10 of the counter affldavit filed on behalf of the 1't ffi H" :::::'. ::::," :",'::':'Jff : : i,:' :: i::: being delayed since petitioner is not cooperating with the Enquiry " t I i \-- - .t \l - 6 SN, J wP 12129 2023 proceedings to avoid punishment. The learned Assistant Govern me t Pleader further submits that the writ oeti tion could be disoosed of by directinq the res Dondents 1 and 2 to conclude the enquirv initiated aoainst the oetitioner vide G .O.Rt.No.58, dated 1 .02.2023 issued to the oetitioner bv the 1tt res Donde nt throuq h the 2nd resp ondent. 6, A bare perusal of the record indicates that the Government issued G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 2L.72.2024 appointing one Sri A.Maruthi Prasad, Municipal Commissioner, Mancherial Municipality as Enquiry Officer to conduct inquiry into the Charges framed against the petitioner and also the Manager, Ramagundam Municipal Corporation as Presenting Officer to present the case before the Enquiry Officer on behalf of the disciplinary Authority. This Court opines that in view of the specific plea put forth by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that promotions are likely to take place soon and the petitioner's case for promotion to the next cadre cannot be ignored due to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the year 2023, with no enquiry having comHenced even as on date, this Court opines that petitioner should furnish petitioner's written statement of defence in response to G'O.Rt.No.58 dated \ 7 SN, J wP 12329 202'l L0.02.2023 issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent and cooperate with the enquiry so as to enable conclusion of the enquiry by passing of appropriate orders by the Disciplinary Authority in accordancr: to Law within a reasonable period and in the meantime petitioner's case for promotion to the next cadre as per seniority should be considered for promotion without reference to the disciplinary proceedings.

7. Division Bench of this Court i.e., High Court of Andhra Pradesh as it then was, in the case of K.Sai Ram y State of Andhra Pradesh reported in ZOLT SCC Ontine Hyderabad 549 vide its Judgment dated O7.O9.2O17 hetci that a "person cannot be penalized by keeping disciplinary proceedangs pending for unduly long periods and in the said case the promotion to the petitioner therein was directed to be considered, with a clear observation that same however shall be subject to outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. Similar view was taken by this Court vide its Judgment dated 31.07.2O18 passed in W.p.No.2l3OG of

2018. , 8 SN, J wP t2129 2023 Hence, this Court opines that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief of consideration of petitioner's case for promotion without reference to G'O'Rt'No'58 dated Lo.o2.2o2Sissuedtothepetitionerbythel"trespondent through the 2nd resPondent' 8 T kin int co sid rati on (a) The facts and circumstanccs of the case' (b) The submissions maCe by the learncd counsel appearing on behalf al the petitioner' the learned Standing Counse! appeering cn behalf of respondents and tire tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I' appearing on behalf of respcnCcnt Nos'1 to 3' (c) This Court oPines that promotion is not a right but Right to be considered for fundamental promotion however is a funCamentat Right' since such a right brings n'ithin its purview an effective' purposeful and meaningful consideration' (d) The fact borne record that G.O.RI'No'S8 the Petitioner bY the ld dated 1O.O2.2023, issued respondent through the 2"d respondent pertains to the alleged irregutarities committed by the petitioner during i I 1 - 9 SN, J wP t2329 2021 the period August 2O2O to Decgnrber,2O21 and the same indicates malafides on thc part of 1tt respondent and hence it is but necessary to put an end to ther c.rquiry. (e) The Division Bench Judgment of this Court reportcd in 2OL7 SCC Online Hyderabad 549, (f) The Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.213O5 of 20L8, The writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit the wiitten statement of petitioner's defence to G.O.Rt.No.58, dated LO.O:-.2O23 issued to the petitioner by the 1't respondent through the 2nd. respondent herein, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by putting forth all the objections/pleas pertaining to the issuance of the said G.O.Rt.No.58, dated LO.O2.2O23 issued to the petitioner by the 1"t respondent through the znd respondent and the l"t respondent shall duly consider the same and initiate appropriate action and issue appropriate directions to all concerned to conclude the enquiry initiated against the petitioner vide impugned G.O.RI.No.S8 dated LO.O2.2O23 of the l't respondent { t 5 '-\l t0 SN, J wP t2329 2023 through the 2nd rcspondent within a period of four (O4) weeks thereafter in accordance to Law, in conformity with principles of natural justice anC pass appropriate orders thereon. The respondents are fu:'ther directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next cadre as per seniority along with all other eligible candidates in accordance to Law without reference to the disciplinary proceedings initiated agaanst the petitioner, subject to finat outcome of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. It is further observed that if petitioner succeeds in cstabtishing his innocence in the disciplinary proceedings pending against him petitioner is entatled to claim all service benefits as per petitioner's legal entitlement' However there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. l. - .a, /ITRUE COPY/' SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD D PUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, \

1. The Principal Secretary, Munic-ipal Ad-ministration and Urban Development ' o.iij,iiii"6t, seiieiiiiSi, ir'e siate of relansana, Hvderabad' 2. The Director of Municipal Administration, State of Telangana' Hyderabad' 3. The Joint Director, o/o Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration. 640, AC Guards, Hyderabad' --T:--...!@- -rr,rl -7 Erstwhile Karimnagar' District.

4. Ramagundam Municipal Corporation, Ramagundam, peodapalli District. 5. fhe District Medical and Health Officer, Karimnagar. 6. One CC to Smt. M. Bhagyasri, Advocate [OPUC] 7 . Two CCs to GP for Services l, High Court for the State o.f Telangana, at 8. One CC to Smt. R. Mahavi latha, SC for the Service matters of Municipal Corporation, Ramagundam[OpUC] . Two cC to The Gp for Medical He3lth and Family planning, High court for the _ State_oJ Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT] 0.Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] 1 o TJ PSK { HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1 610612025 ORDER WP.No.12329 of 2023 t T}IE s o :ct) 2 6 ,rU/tJ 2925 '(- =c) .rt 3 t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L