The High Court · 2025

Petition under section '1 51 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 interim order Dated: 18-04-2022 in l.A.No. 1 & 2 0f 2022 in W.P.No.'18163 of 2022 and dismiss the Writ Petition' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.V.RAMANA Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMA.VARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.18163 of2022 ORDER: . The present Writ Petition is filed for quashing the departmental proceedings initiated under Articles of Charge issued in Rc.No. 1656/2076/M4, dated 2l'O3'2017 in respect of an incident pertains to 2OI4 in spite of submitting the report by the Bnquiry Officer on 05.03.2019.

2. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Forest Section Officer in February 2O0B at Kamareddy Division 'of erstwhile Nizamabad District. The petitioner worked as a Forest Section Officer for Reddypet Section, Kamareddy Range of Kamareddy Division' fromOctober2OOgtoJune2014'Duringthesaidperiod'as per the estimates sanctioned by the Divisional office for construction of boundary- pillars, work was executed under Vana Samrakshana Samithi (VSS) as per the procedure / 2 contemplated. \,l/orks were executed as per the t rstimates prepared and aJter works were completed, r,r,ork co mpletion reports were incorporated in the Division Accounts acc,epted by the Divisionai Forest Officer, Kamareddy. In 2OI4 rtself the Divisional Offict: accepted the works. While stood thus, the Vigilarrce & Enquiry personnel from the Directorati: Ofhce, conducted field inspection and found certain irregulz:.rities in respect of usage of steel and concrete for layin g down foundations. 3 (i) l,earn ed counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the report, it was found that in view of the said irregularities, ioss of an amount of Rs.32,342/- was ciLused to the exchequer. Based on the report of Vigilance & rDnquiry, dated 10.02.2015, Articles of Charge was issued by the 3.a respondent nearly after 3 years i.e., on 2l.O3.2O17 framing single charge. On O 1.05 .2OlT , the petitioner sought fur.nishing the report of D.Ct., Vigilance & Enquiry, dated i0.02.2()15 and copies of M.Books. On furnishing the same, the petitioner submitted a reply on 04.07.2017, denying the charge in toto. The petitioner rarsed objections against the rapses poirrted out by the Vigilance & Enquiry personnel. The petitiorrer was 3 transferred lrom the said place and during the new incumbent period Vigilance & Enquiry, submitted reports without knowing the truth in the allegations. 3(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submit-s that after submitting reply to the charge on O2'O8'2O17' the 3'd respondent appointed Divisiona'l Forest Ofhcer, Kamareddy' as an Enquiry Authority for submitting hndings within three months. Subsequently, the said Enquiry Officer was changed and Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by proceedings d'ated 03'10'2017 and directed him to submit his findings within three months' After lapse of four months, the 3'd respondent appointed Forest Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, as Presenting Officer' This itself shows that after lapse of three months, Presenting Officer was appointed. On 10.09.2018 i.e' after Iapse of seven months' the petitioner received notice to attend before the Enquiry Officer onlg.og.2ol8andafterreceivingthenotice,thepetitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer' The Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to submit his written statement ald accordingly, the petitioner submitted his written statement to ( 4 the Enquiry Officer on the same date by denying the charge in toto. 3(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Enquiry Officer without conducting anv enquiry under Rule 20 of T.S C.S. & C.C.A. Rules, submitted his '.eport on

05.03.20 19. Aft,:r lapse of nearly six months, it was f orwarded to the petitioner along with findings on 06.03.20 19 aed asked the petitioner to submit his defence, The Enquir,g Ofhcer without there being any evidence and discussing the r:vidences stated that the c:harge is proved. The petitioner submitted his objections on 22.03.2019 and requesting that the disciplinary proceedings be rlropped since the charge is not proven based on any evidence, Fl.,ren after lapse of three years, the resttondents have not passecl any Iinal orders finalizing the disciplinary proceedings initiated in respect of an event of 2Ol4 ir:r charge memo 2l .3.2O7\: 3(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the Seniority List prepared as on O 1.01.20 I 9 in the category of Deput5z Range Ofhcers, the petitioner st.ands at Sl.No.lS. The petitioner was promoted as a Deputy Range Officer on 14.09'.2O14 and his juniors stand from S1.No.21,22, It I 5 23 and 27 in ttre said seniori(y list were promoted to the post of Forest Range Officers in the panel year 2Ol9 in March 2O2O' Due to pendency of the disciplinary' proceedings, the petitioner's case was not considered for promotion to the post bf Forest Range Officer even though he is the senior most person' 3(v) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the charge is very simple in nature. In view of negligence or irregularities committed by three officers, Government sustained loss of Rs.32,342/-. For such a simple charge, for issuing Articles of Charge, the Department has taken nearly three years. In spite of fixing time for finalization of departmental proceedings within three months, even after submitting the report by the Enquiry Officer, more than three years time has been lapsed and the respondents not finalised the departme.ntal proceedings. As per the Government Circular issued in Circular Memo No.35676lSer-C198-l G'A'(Ser'C) Department dated O 1.07. i998 and Memo No'24637 lServ.Cl2OOO-2 G.A.(Ser.C) Department, dated 05'09'2000, three months time granted in respect of simple cases and six months time in respect of complicated cases for finalizing the disciplinary cases. 6 3(vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the law laid down by the Honble Suprerre Court, inordinate delay in finalization of departmental proceedings, is the ground to cluash the departmental proceedings. Even otherwise, the clepartment has not produced aly evirlence to prove the petition er's guilty. Moreover, the report of Enquiry Officer establishes that there is no evidence at al1 procluced by the Presenting Olficer to prove the charge. The contents of the report were not proved by any independent evidence. It is the case of no evidence. The findings given by the Enquiri, Officer a-re perverse. The report prepared by the Enquiry ( )fficer is illegal arrd contriuy to the provisions of Rule 20 & 27 T.S.C.S. & C.C.A. Rules 3 (vii) Learn ed counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Government kept the matter pending for th: last 3 years in spite of receiving the report of the Enquiry Off .cer. As such, the petitioner approached this Court for apprropriate relief.

4. Along vvith the Writ petition, the petitioner filed I A. No.l of 2022 is filed to issue an interim direction clirecr ing the respondents to frrrthwith consider the case of the petiti,rner for 7 promotion to the post of Forest Range officer without reference to the Articles of Charges issued in Rc'No'1656 l2Ol6/M4, dated 21.03.2017 pending disposal of the Writ Petition and I.A.No.2 of 2022 is filed to issue an interim direction staying all further proceedings in pursuance of the Articles of Charges issued in Rc.No. 1656 l2016 lM4, dated 2l'O3'2017 ' At the time of arguments, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I submitted that directions be issued to the respondentstocompletethediscipiinar5zproceedingswithin three months. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this court opined that there has been an inordinate delay in completion of disciplinary proceedings, which cannot be countenanced. The petitioner has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Accordingly, this court directed that there shall be. interim direction as prayed for in LA.Nos. 1 and 2 of 2022.

5. Later, the respondents filed vacate stay petition vide I'A' No.3 of 2022 along with counter by contending that the Officials of Vigilance and Enforcement Department had inspectedtheworksexecutedbytheForestofficialsforthe years 201 l-12 and' 2Ol2-13 ald among other works, the I / 8 Vigilance & Enfrrrcement Oflicials noticed certain irregularities in the works executed by the Petitioner. On credible information thzLt the Forest Ofhcials of Medak & Nizamabad Districts committed irregularities in executing the r,,,ork, the officials of Vigila.nce and Enforcement Department aong with the ofhcials of Forest Department, have verified the works carried out under different schemes. Accordingly, the irrspection party has verifiecl the work of construction of 20 RCC lroundar5r pillars at Gidda Beat of Reddypet Section of Kamared,:ly Range and Division which was carried out by the petitioner under l3e Finance Forest Protection scheme during 2Ol2-13 seas,tn. 5(i) It is the further contention of the respondents; that the inspection partv noticed at page No.3 of measurem()nt book No.293/12 the rvork of RCC (1:2:4) 20 crn. thick up tr.r ground level worth Rs.27,513/- is charged for constructior of (20) pillars. But it is observed by the Vigilance & Enforcenrent and Forest officials dtrring inspection that RCC work is not done for construction of (2O) pillars. Thus, the Vigiian ce and Enforcement officials assessed the total loss causerl to the Government to Rs.32,342 /-, for which, the petitioner is held responsible. The lnquiry Ofhcer without conducting anr inquiry 9 has submitted hndings is not correct and the fact is that, the Inquiry Officer has conducted the Oral Inquiry on 19'09'2018 and statement of the petitioner had been . recorded as per the procedure laid down in Rule-2O of Telangana State Civil Services (Classifrcation, Control ald Appeal) Rules, 199 1' After following the procedure laid down in the said rules, the Inquiry Ofhcer submitted his findings in the disciplinary proceedings of the petitioner holding the Charges as "Proved" and submitted to the Respondent No.3 in Rc.No.3067/2017 lD4, 'dated

05.03.2019. 5(ii) It is the further contention of the respondents that the candidature of the petitioner falls under Para 6 of Government orders in G.O.Ms.No.257 General Administration (Services.C) Department dated 10.06.1999' Para 6 of the said G.O. reads as.follows: "The appointing autlnitg should cor:sider and decide that it would not be again st public interest to allow adtnc promotion to tle officer concerned and this shall be decided uith reference to the chnrge under enquiry' If the charge is one of moral turpitude, misappropiation, embezzlement and graue dereliction of dutg then the appotnting authoitlt should consider as not in the pubtic interest to consider adhoc prornotion to such charged officer' BuL houeuer' if the chorge is not a graue one but is a minor one' not f 10 tnuoluing tnoral htrpitude, embezzlement and grat e dereliction oJ' dutg then onlg in such co,ses the appointin g authoity sltculd consider that it u.tould not be against pubt,c interesl to c,.llout odhoc promotion because titL theru h, s record is clectn uith reference to ACRs, past punishmet .t and reputaiion in the department as uouch_safed by the Head of the Department and Secretary to Gouentment. Thz appointing ,:Luthorities should stiue to ftnatise thz disciplinary cases pursing them uigorouslg so that uithin tt o aears the proceedings are concluded and finaL order; issued. " S(iii) It is the further contention of the respondents that the Charge Menro dated 2l.O3.2OlZ issued to the petitioner is of grave dereliction of duty and misappropri; rtion of Government funds by way of constructing boundary pillars without an). foundation and with insufficient steel enf{)rcement thereby causing Loss of Rs.32,342/- to Government exchequer. Further, the candidature of the petitioner falls under })ara 6 of Government ord€rrs in G.O.Ms.No.2SZ General Admin istration (Services.C) Department dated 10.06.1999 as the charges framed against him are held proved arrd proposa,ls for hnalization of disciplinary case had been submitteci to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Telangan:,_ State, H.yderabad, who in turn submitted the proposals to thr, Special l1 Secretar5r to Government, EFS&T, Telangana Secretariat' HyderabadforfinaTizationofdisciplinar5rcaseofthePetitioner. The orders from the Government are awaited' In view of the said circumstances, prayed to vacate the Interim Orders issued in I.A. Nos. 1 &' 2 of 2022 in WP No. 18163 of 2022 on I8.O4.2022. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition'

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that inthepresentcasethereisinordinatedelayfromtheinception and such unexplained delay in of alleged irregularities conclusion of the proceedings, vitiates the proceedings ald it would cause prejudice to the petitioner and he relied upon the . judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A'P' Vs' N' Rad hakishanr observed as follows: "18. In State of Punjab u. Chaman Lal Gogal, State of Punjab u,us aggrieued bg the order of the High Court of htnjab and Horyana quashing memo of charges against Gogal and also the order appointing Enrpiry Officer to inqtire into those chorges. In this cose the inciden| uthich u.to.s the subiect-motter of charge, happened in December 1986 dnd in eartg Jonuary 1987, uLhen Gogal was working a-s Supeintendent of Nabha High Secuitg Jail It uas onlg on 9.7.1992 that memo of charges utas issued to Gogal' He submitted his explanation on 4'1'1993 denging the chorges' ' (1998)4 scc 154 , I t2 Enquiry Of_fi:er u.tas appointed on 20.7.1993 and soo,t thereafter (byaL f.led uit petition in the High Court ot 24.8. 1993 |he High Court quashed the memo of charges o"t the principa I ground of delag of fiue and o half gears i,t seruing the memo of chnrges, for which there u_tas nt acceptable ,:xplanation. This Court examined tLrc factut,l position as lc how the delag occurred and if Gogal had bee,t prejudiced it any tuag on occount of delag. Thi_s Couft rel[eil on the pinripLes laid doun in A.R. Antulay u. R.S. Nayak and said thctt though that case pertained to crlminc,l proseafiion tne pinciples enunciated therein taere broadl,l appLicable tt the plea of delag in taking the disciplinorl l proceedings as u,ell. In the cas€ on hand, irregularities allegedly tak en place on 70.O2.2015 and after lapse of three years i.e. on 2l .03.2017 , the 3.d respond('rrt framed a single charge. On Ol.O5.!t017, tine petitioner sought furnishing the report of D.G., Vig..Iance & Enquiry, dated I O.O2.2O15, and the petitioner submitted his reply on 04.O7.2017 denying the charge in toto. After lapse of seven months frDm the date of charge, notice was issur:d to the petitioner to attend before the Enquiry Officer on 19.O9.2O1g and the Enquiry Officer without conducting any enquiry under Rule 20 of T.S.(1.S. & C.C.A. Rules, submitted his roport on

05.03.2019 after Japse of six months. As such, the facr,s in the above cited case are squarely applicable to the case on hald. 7 13 T.Learnedcounselforthepetitionervehementlyarguedthat the delay in initiation of disciplinary proceedings a-fter three years and continuance thereof causes prejudice to th: petitioner and relied upon the judgment of Hon1cle Supreme Court in M.V. Biilani Vs- Union of India and' others;2 wherein it was held as under: " 19. It is reallg a matter of great surprise that o d.isciptinary proceeding was initiated fiue gears afier the oppellant handed. ouer charge- At that time he utas admittedly not hauing poisession of ang documents' The Enquiry Officer furthennore took a peiod of seuen gears to complete ttLe enquiry. The Appettate Authoitg also took seuen Aears in di-sposing of the appeal' Euen then' the Appellate Authoritg did not go into the Etestion o^s to whether th.e procedures laid doton for holding the disciplinary proceedings had been follott-ted or noL He did not go into the contentions of the appellant herein mtnutelg' The memo of appeal filed by the appellant lDo's uery elaborate. He raised a number of contentions therein' The enquiry officer ttta.s chnrged u-tith bias' He tuo's also charged uith unfair conduct. He tuos said to haue committed a large number of inegulaities in tLLe departmental proceeding' Tlrc memo of appeal of the appellant was in about 65 tgped' pages. It uLas subdiuided into fiue patts' He mnde oll endeouours to deal uith each and euery finding of the enquiry officer and. d.eatt uith almost all tle doanrnents relied. upon bg the department' He also dealt tuith the ' (2006)5 scc 88 , -- l4 depositiort <tf the uitnesses parties." examined on belrulf of t,trc In the present case also, the disciplinar_-v procer)ding was initiated three .,,-ear-s after the petitioner halded ov(,r charge. The petitioner r;rised objections against the lapses pc,inted out by the Vigilance & Enquiry personnel. The petitioner was trarsferred from the said place ald during the ner,r. ircumbent period Vigilance & Enquiry, submitted reports u,ithout knowing the truth in the eLllegations.

8. On the other hald, the learned counsel for res:ondents argued that the disciplinary enquiry car proceed to ir-s logical conclusion and he relied upon the judgment ol. the Hon,ble Supreme Court ur State of Madhga prq.d.esh and, another Vs. Akhilesh Jha and anotherf wherein it was hetd as ur,der; '16- For the cboue reasons, tte allou the appeal and- set aside the Impugned judgment and order of the Htgh Court dated 5 9-2019. The charge-sheet tuas i,ssued to firc first respondent t uhile he uas in seruice, and hence the di.sciplinarg e .quiry can proceed_ to its logical conclusion. The dtsciplinar.q enquiry should be conclud.ed expeditiously, preferably btr 3i 7-2O22. In the euent that the J.irst respondent is entitled to the release of any part of his retiral dues, including gratuitg, in consonance u.tith lau.t, rLecessctru ' (2021) 12 scc 160 15 steps for that purpose shall be taken u.ithin a peiod of ttt-to months from the date of this order.'

9. In the case on hand, the issue was raised in the 2014 and even after lapse of three years, disciplinary proceedings were not completed. As per Rule 5 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, in simple cases, the enquiry initiated shall be completed within three months and in case of complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the enquiry should be completed within hve to six months. Knowingly about the said rulb, the Departmental Ofhcers have delayed the disciplinary proceedings in the present case ard for which, the petitioner cannot be punished by withholding his promotion etc., Even the CCA rules mandate the completion of departmental proceedings in simple cases, the enqrriry initiated shall be completed within three months and in case of complicated cases, it shall be ensured that the enquiry should be completed within live to six months. As such, the above judgment is not applicable to the case on hand.

10. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is inclined to set aside the departmental proceedings initiated under Articles of Charge issued in Rc.No. 1656/2016 lM4, dated 2L.O3.2O17 in t I a t6 respect of an incident pertains to 2Ol4 and accordingly, set aside. Conseqlu:ntly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Forest Range Officer o1r par with his juniors from March 2020 r,r,ith all consequential att-endant benefits

11. Accordingll', the Writ Petition is allowed. No or,1er as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if aly, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. witness THE HoN'BLE THE AcflNG .HIEF JUSTTCE suJoy pAlJL, on this THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AruO rWtrIrV-iIVE I //TRUE COPYII One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble Sri Justice NAMAV (For His Lordships Kind perusal) SD/-T.TIRUMALA DEVI D PUTY REGISTRAR f \SECTION OFFICER U RAJESHWAR RAO IP,"lt3L"^"lrglqnO.ang, rep. by its Speciat Chief Secretary to C;ovt. Envrronment. Forests science and rechnorogy oepartmerit i.s.secretariat, Hyderabad . The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhavan, Saifabad Hyderabad. . The Chief Conservator of F.orests, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad . The District Forest Officer, famaAO'AV - . 11 LR Copies. . The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice anrJ Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Lib,rary, High rlourt Buildings, Hyderabad. 9n" 99 to SRI p.\.z.RAMANA, Advocate IOPUCI Ilo""?r",,'rl? ?j.ir?* Two CD Cooies senviies-i,-i'-g*i b"oriY3. t e state or reransana, at 2 3 4 5 o

7. 8 I To 1

0. 1 PSK. LS $ G:&*--1- --.. - .::= _= HIGH COURT DATED:0310412025 ORDER WP.No.18163 of 2022 ( c- i9 1HF. :i rA /(: 10 A,i, .2C25 > ,rt -r::__ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @9."{''B *r,,- da\'r