SRI M v. RAMA RAO

The ll Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District ...RESPONDENTS 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3'd respondent in terminating the petitioner from the post of Jr. Assistant vide Order DIS. No. 3187/ ADMN/ DCBKG/ DATED 05-11-2024 and the Order ROC. No. 25781 2024 - C.1, dated 16.04.2025 of the 2nd respondent in appeal as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all consequential benefits. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor r may be pleased to suspend Order DlS. No. 3187/ ADMN/ DCBKG/ DATED ) '-11-2024 of the 3rd respondent and Order ROC. No. 25781 2024 -C.1, dated 1i.O4.2025 of the 2nd respondent and direct the respondents to reinstate the petiti,t rer in to service. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. V. RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: MS. M. SHALINI, GP FC L SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4:MS. SAMHITHA Nlll MALA, REPRESENTING SRI VIVEK JAIN, SC The Court made the following: ORDER I - IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO.16795 OF 2025 Between: DATE:04.12.2025 S.Dinesh- Kumar s f o. Veerabhadram, Aged:29years/ occu: Jr.Assistant, r/o.Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem clistrict And State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Law Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others. Peti tioncr . Re.spondents ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri lustice P.Sam Koshy) The present is a writ petition which has been filed assailing the order of termination of the serv ices of the petitioner dated 05.11.2024 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 76.04.2025, affirming the order of termina tion -E\ -.+i=i I \.] 2 2 The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner i r the instant case appiied for the post of Junior Assistant Gr rde-Il in the Office of Principat District and Sessions Jucie,: Bhadradri- Kothagudem district. After undergoing the recruitment process and being selected, the petitioner w I ; issued an appointment order on 14.02.2024 and join,: l duty on

15.02.2024. However, having worked only for a r hort period thereaf ter, he began frequently availing casual l: rve without anv justifiable grounds and thereafter, he apJ lied for an Extraordinary Leave (EOL) on loss of pay from (1.06.2024 to

75.06.2024 orr thc ground of having back pain. 'f . : said leave was sanctioned on 07.06.2024. Even though, orL completion of this leave on75.06.2024, the petitioner failecl t I report for duty. Petitioncr \,v.rs issued with an Office Memc randum on

06.07.2024, calling for his explanatiory which was duiv received bv him, but he failed to give responsc to the said memo. He was issued with another Office Mem I .andum on

26.07.2024, which also was received by him. To his second l 3 Office Memorandum also, there was no response given by the petitioner he tried to report back for duty Meanwhile, the petitioner was issued with a charge-memo, to which he submitted his reply. After which, upon giving an undertaking by the petitioner to mend his ways and also assuring that he would not apply for further leave unnecessarily, the charge-memo was drawn and he resumed the duty. However, the petitioner again applied EOL for 31 days from 07.70.2024 to 31.10.2024 on rhe ground of the postponement of the Group-I Examination, which leave was granted by the learned District and Sessions Judge. Yet, the petitioner did not report for duty after expiry of said 31 days. The petitioner thereafter applied for a fresh grant of EOL, this time for extension of further period of 46 days from

01.77.2024 to 16.72.2024, this time was on medical grounds along with a medical certificate. Meanwhile, it was learnt that the Group-I examination of TGPSC was also concluded. Yet, the petitioner did not report for duty \i'-.1 - 'l 4

3. In the light of aforesaid conduct of the 6 etitioner., the Principal District Judge, aide order datec 05.1"1.2024, terminated his services taking into consideratio: r the conduct on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner mean\ I ile preferred the writ petition challenging the order of terr ination. The said writ petition was disposed of, directing thr ;'retillene. 1. prefer an appeal before the competent auth:"ity and the competent authority was directed to dispose : : the Appeal as expeditiouslv as possible. l'he said directiorr.,,as issued in W.F.No.33873 of 2024 ilde order dated 04. 2.2024. The petitioner thereafter preferred an Appeal, and he appellate authority also on meticulouslv scrutinizing thc , ntire service record of the petitioner and overall condu:, found his conduct to be unbecoming of an employee ot the judicial system and dismissed the appeal, upholding .he order of termination, leading to the filing of the present v rit petition.

4. Heard Mr. M.V.Rama Rao, learned :ounsel for petitioner and Ms. M.Shalini, learned Governr rent Pleader 5 for Services-Il appearing for the 1"r respondent and Ms. Samhitha Nimmala, learned Counsel representing Mr. Vivek ]ain, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 5 The learned counsel representing the petitioner drew the attention of the Court the order passed by the learned Principal Disbrict and Sessions Judge and contended that the words used by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge are too harsh which are observed and these observations ma1, |-rot." an advcrse bearing so far as the scope of future employment is concerned and, therefore, prayed the impugned order to be set aside. It was also contended that the le-arneci Principal District and Sessions ludge has not conducted any sort of enquiry before passing the stigmatic order and for which reason also, the impugned order of termination deserves to be set aside. However, when the petitioner's counsel was confronted with the factual matrix of the case and also the conduct of the petitioner, who had shown disinterest in discharging his duties just after only 5 three to four months of regular employmerrl:., the learned counsel could not justify the conduct of t l petitioner. Another factual aspect which needs appreciati rrr is that all the grounds rrarrated by the petitioner for seekrr g EOL u,ere, in themselves, sel f -contradictory

6. Anothcr aspcct which canrlot be brust-:d aside is, whether in the given factual matrix the District Judge could at all grant EOL, for the reasons given by the pc 1 tioner

7. The reasons and facts narrated in tr: preceding paragraph speak volumes regarding the i ttitude and conduct of the petitioner IS concerned, so far as his disinterest ir-r discharging his clutie's.under thr: respondents are concerned and for these very reasons, we ind that the decision of the respondents in terminating his services cannot be found fault with

8. However, considering the wrong words used by the Principal District and Sessions Judge rvhiJe passing the 7 termination order, we are of the considered opinion that since the order of termination is one, which is in fact an order of termination simpliciter, it could had been simply passed referring to ihe conduct of the petitioner and his service record. However, using of such harsh words may have an adverse bearing so far as the future prospects of the petitioner is concerned. Wc are, therefore, of the opinion that I \ without interfering with the action of termination passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions ]udge, we only direct the third respondent in ensuring that a fresh order be passed with the same outcome. However, while passing the same, the observations, such as, "headache for this Court', "incorrigible fellow", "criminal minded incumbent,, can all be avoided and a fresh order be passed.

9. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ petition stands disposed of. Since we are passing an order directing the 3.d respondent to issue a fresh order so as to ensure that the earlier order dated 05.11.2024 does not remain on record for \ +rf- \t - o any future reference, which could be detrinr :ntal to the interests of thc petitioner, it would be appropria ,e for the 3.d respondent to withdraw the earlier order and ;sue a fresh

10. There shall be no order as to coi s. Pending Miscellaneous Applications if any shall starrc'l c lr ;ed SD'. (. BHAVANI SWAMY ASI; STANT REGISTRAR ',.,..*\--,/ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 4 t) 7 8 TJ BS The Prl. Secretary, Law Department Secretariat, State ( Hyderabad 'Telangana, The Registrar (Administration) High Court for the Stak: Hyderabad >f Telangana, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothzg Kothagudem .rdem District The ll AdUl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Kothaguderr Kothagudem District One CC to Sri M. V. Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court for the Stal€ Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri Vivek Jain, SC[OPUC] Bhadradri of Telangana, at Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0411212025 ORDER WP.No.16795 of 2025 <== ;G': l tl'' S irl i Jrlr 202fi i;,A \ I * i;,-1,- r'.i i? DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS