The High Court · 2025

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 lssue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by declaring the proceedings of the '1st respondent bearing G.O.Rt.No.660, PR and RD (Vig.ll) Dept., dt. 71912018, in so far as it relates to imposing punishment i.e. ,withholding '15 percent eligible pension for a period of 2 years, while setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service vide proceedings No.10861/CPR and RElB2l2009, dt.71912012 of the 2nd respondent, instead of fully exonerating the petitioner and G.O.Rt.No.301, PR and RD (Vig.ll) Dept., dt. 1OtGl2O1g, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for treating the period of dismissal as not on duty, as illegal, arbitrary and u ncon stitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of lndia by quashing the same in so far as it relates to imposing punishment i.e- withholding 15 percent eligible pension for a period of 2 years is concerned and consequenfly direct the respondents to treat the period of dismissal i.e. from 14t9t2o12 ro 31t1t2ol1 as on duty and pay the salary and other allowances for the said period to the petitioner by conferring all consequential benefits_ lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 treat the perrod of dismissal i.e. from 14tgt2o12 to 31t1t 20'lB, as on duty and pay the sarary and other alowances for the said period to the petitioner, pending final disposal of the main W.p. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.GOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: ORDER ,| r'' THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.15419 of2O2O Seeking to declare the proceedings issued by respondent No.l vide G.O.Rt.No.660, PR & RD (Vig.ll) Dept., dated 07.O9.2ota, insofar as it relates to imposing the punishment of withholding 15% eligible pension for a period of two years, upon the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2l of the Constitution of India, the present Writ Petition is hled. 2) Heard Mr. S.Gopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader lor Services-Il appearing for the respondents. 3) Learned counscl for the pctitioner contends that while the petitioner was u,orking as Panch:rvat Secretary at Vellavula Gram Panchayat of Karimnagar District, respondent No.2 rssued charge memo datcd O 1.O4.20 l0 franiing six charges against the petitioner. However, the said charge mcmo does not contain the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehavior by which each Article of Charge was proposcd to be suslaincd and no copies of documents were supplied to the pctitioner and therefore the Charge Memo is not inconsonance with Rulc 20 (3) & (4) ol APCS (CC&A) Rule s (in !\ p l.-_ 1., lal-to short 'CCA RulesJ. Therefore, thc vcry initiatrotr of disciplinary proceedings by issuing charge memo is contrary to t?ule 20 0f ccA Rules. in response to the charge memo clateci 01.04.20 1O, petitioner has submitted his detailed explanatior-r on I I.O5_20 1O denying the charges and requesting to drop ther proccedings. BuL. rvithout considering the same, the respondcnts in a routine manner appointed an Enquiry officer, rvho dicl nor .-rvcn conducted a regular enquiry as contemplated under Rule 20 ot.CCA Rules, as no witnesses were examined and even the statcment of the pe[itioner was not taken, and submittecl his report holding that charges I to 5 are proved against the petitioner. I..urther, bascd on the enquiry report, respondent No.2 has issucd memo dated directing the petilioner to submit his <:xplanatron on reporl, for which, the peLitioner has submittccl his on 29.O8.2O11 narrating the true fac ts. Hou,cver, without considering the same in proper manner, rcsponclcnt No.2 has issued proceedings No.10861/CpR&Rtr/U2i2O09, dared 07 'o9.2o12, imposing the major penarty of dismissal tiom service the enquiry explanation 7 t .o7 .201 1 31) Learned counsel further submits that aggricvccl by the proceedings datcd OT .09.2012, petitioner filed an ,rppezrl bcfore respondent No. I raising several grounds. But, r,l.ithout considering the same, respondent No.1 has dismissed the appcal vide Memo wp 15+19 2O2O No.22777 lVig.III A/2012-2, dated 28.01.2013, contrary to Rule 37 of CCA Rules. Further, pursuant to the representations made by the petitioner, respondent No.l vide Memo No.25389/Vig.ll- Al l2Ol3-1, dated 05.11.2013, directed the District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar, respondent No.4 herein, to conduct re-enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner and submit his report. Thus, in view of the said memo dated 05.11.2023, the order of punishment dated 07.09.2012 passed by respondent No.2 as confimed by respondent No.1 vidc order dated 2a.Ol.2Ol3 deem to have been set aside. Il is further contcnded that though respondent No.1 directed respondent No.4 to conduct re-enquiry ancl submit report, without implementing the same and even without examining the petitioner, respondent No.4 has submitted his report vide letter dated 07-04.2014, on assumptions and presumptions, holding that charges 1 to 5 are proved. In the said report, date d 07 .O4 .2014, it r,r,as also clearly mcr-rtioned that on recerpl of information from Deputy Exccutive trngineer (PR), Huzurabad, further report will be submitted. However, without waitrng for such further report to be submitted by respondent No.4, respondent No.1 has issued Memo No.25389 /Vig.II/A1 / 2013-5, dated 08.06.2O15, again rejecting the appeal of the petrtioner. Questioning the orders dated 08.06.2015 and

07.O9.2012, petitioner hled O.A. No.2992 of 2015 before the tl-rc Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Hou,ever, in vieu, ol abolition of Tribunal, the case was transferred to this Court ar.rd numbered as Wp (TR) No.3g15 of 2017. I_earncd counsel has further submittecl tha r dsling the pendency of the said rvrir petlLion, petitioner made a representation to responclent No. I to set aside the dismissal order duly considcring his linancial condirion. upon which, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.6rrO, pR & t?D dated OT.O9.2O1g, setting aside the punishment ol (Vig.ll) Dept., dismissal from service besides recovery but imposccl punishment of withholding 15% eligible pension fbr a periorl of tr.r.cr years without exonerating the petitioner fully, u,hich ts illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles I4, l6 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counscl further submil s that the petitioner made another representation to r,lsponclcnLs I and 2 requesting to treat the period of dismissal liom servicc ll_om l4.O\.2O12 Lo 31.11.2018 as on duty, as per t.It_54, sincc rhe order of dismissal from service was set aside vidc G.O.RL.No.66O, dated OT.O9.2OIg. However, without consrdcring thc representation of thc petitioner in proper perspectivc the clairn of the petitioner u,as rejected by respondent No.1 vide (i.().Rt.No.301, PR & RD (Vig.rr) Dept. , dated lO.06.2O lg , and t he same is and unjust. Therefore, thc lcarned counscl to pass appropriate orders by setting asidc absolutely illegal prayed this Court -7 impugned G,O.Rt.No.66O, datcd 07.O9.2Ola, insofar as it relares to imposing the punishment of withholding 157o eligible pension for a period of [wo years and also G.O.RI.No.3O1, dated 10.06.2019, rejecting to treat the period of slrspension as on duLy. 4) Per contra, the learned Government Pleerder submits that basing on the report submitted by the District Collector vide Lr.Rc.No.A6l l94O /2OO9-Pts- 1, dated 24.09.2O1O, ',vherein ir was stated that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities in Lhe administration of Gram Panchayat Jammikunta, Karimnagar Dislrict, the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, had initiated departmental proceedings againsr thc petitioner as per CCA Rules and issued Charge Memo dated 0l.04.20 lO framing 6 charges in consonance with Rule 20 (3) ancl (4) of CCA Rules. F urther, the contention of the petitioner that no documents were supplied to the petitioncr was raised only alter a lapse of 8 years in the present writ affidavit and the same is not correc[. Further, the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charge mcmo denying the chaSges and as Lhe explanation of thc petitioner is not convincing an enquiry officer was appointed. After conducting l enquiry, thc Enquiry Ofhcer has submitted his report vide Lr.No.AS/ 1538/2010, dated 23.06.2O11, holding rhat the charge Nos. I to 5 are proved and charge No.6 is not proved against the .,*.'.**&iA&;il 6 -"-- " .i \,. \. I'K..I lvp 1.54 t9 2O2O - petitioner. After accepting the said findings vide Memo No.10861/CPR&RE/82l2009, dated tt.O7.2Ot1 , rtre cop1,-ot rhr: enquiry repor[ was communicated to the petition(ir to offer hrs remarks, for which, thc petitioner has submitted his explar-r:rtion through the District panchayat Ofhcer, KarimnagzLr District, on 08.09.20 I 1. On considering the said explanation, duly agrceing with the findings of the Enquiry Ofhcer and as the gravity of charges 1, 3 and 5 are serious in nature and are proved in thc enquiry, the punishment of dismissal from scrvice u,zrs imposed on the petitioncr besides ordering recovery o1 amount of Rs.21,76,48O/- and the same was conhrmed in appeals by the Government vide Memo No.3974 /Vig.I II-A/2013_2, dated 19.08.2013 and Memo No.253893/Vig.III Al2013_1, dated 05.11_2O13. Aggrier.cd by the same, petitioner filed Cr.A. No.29921 2O15 belore the Andhra pradesh Administration Tribunal and after abolition of thc Tribunal. thc malter was transferrecl Lo this Court and numbercd as w.p (Tr.) No.3g15 of 2or7 ancr the same is pending. During the pendency of the said writ pet.ition and on considering the represenLation of the petitioner, dated OI.lO.2Ol7 , respondent No.1 has taken lenient view and issued G.O.RL.No.660 dated 07-o9.2018 sctting aside the punishment of dismissal from service and reduced the punishment to that w,ithholding ctf l1,k eligible pension for a period of 2 years on the gror.tnd that the punishment imposed against the petitioner is too harsh Thereafter, respondent No'1 has also examined thc request ol the the period of suspension as on duty and rightly petitioner to lreat request vide G O'Rt No'301' dated i0'06'2019' no merits in the writ petition and prayed to rejected thc said Hence, there are dismiss the same- 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record' 6) As submitted can be seen from the record' basing on the report by the District Collector' PR Wing' dated 24 O9 2O 10' departmental Proceedings were initiated against the petrtroner' charge memo dated 01'04 201O was issued framing 6 charges tn accordance with CCA Ruies' To the said charge memo' petitioner has submitted his explanation and as the said explanation is not convincing, the respondents have appointed Enquiry Of[rcer and thereafter the Onquiry Officer has conducted enquiry and submltted Enquiry Report holding that charges I to 5 are no[ proved and charge 6 is proved Basing on the said Enquiry Report and as charges 1, 3 and 5 are grave in nature, the DisciPlinary Authority has imppsed the punishment o[ Removal from Servrcc besides ordering recovery ol Rs.2I,76,48O/ upon [he petrtloner vidc Punishment order dated O7.09.2012 arrd thc same was .1, . -;,:i.i. 1 ., ,:'..': . ..: !l ll p_ i.r+ 19 2020 rl\. - No'253893/Vig.liI-A/2013-1, confirmed in appeals by the appellate authority vide Memo No 3974lVig.lII-A/2013-2, dared 19.08.2013 and Memo dared 05.i 1.2013. euesrioning the same, petitioner preferrecl O.A. No.2992/2015 bcforr: the Tribunal and the same was later [ransferred to this Court and numbered as WP (T4 No.38 l5 ot 2017. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, on considering the representatlon oI the petitioner, dated 0i.lO.2O1Z, and duly taking note ol the financial condition of the petitioner, the Government has taken a lenient view towards the petitioner and reduced the punishment of dismissal from scrvice to that of withholdin g of ISo/n eligible pension for a pcrioci of two years. Further, it was also decided to treat the period of dismissal 14.O1.2072 to 31.11.201g as not on duty on thc ground ,no work no pay,. Therefore, having regard to the nature of allegations proved agalnst the petitioner in the departmental enquiry and also the fact that the GovernmenI has already taken lc nien t view towards the pedtioner and n_rodified the punishment of removal lrom service [o that withholding of l5%o of eligible pension lor a period of two years and the said period is arso over by this time, this Court is not inclined to take further lenient view towarcls thc petitioner. As such, this Court does not find anv reason to grant the relief s6sg61 by the petitioner. -a r I I 7) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismisscd - Miscellaneous petitrons pending, if any, shall stand closed No cosls //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER l One CC to SRI S.GOPAL RAO, Advocate' IOPUC] 2.TwoCCstoGPFORSERV|CESll,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana louTl I

3. Two CD CoPies. BSK PSK To, I I \ .j1a () R T t-lE :i 74 ,t 28 AUE 2W \ Cl (, (1' : C

11.(i H L HIGH COURT DATED:12 102t2025 ORDER WP.No.15419 of 2O2O DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Ir18