The High Court · 2025

detailed explanation denYing the petitioner charge memo, stating that the allegations made in the petitioner's selection was under the OC (G) quota as confirmed in the RTI response dated 29'08'2016 and 31'OB'2016' and the petitioner never availed the benefit of PH reservation' hence the charges made against the petitioner do not stand in the eye of law. It is further the case of the petitioner that the issuance of the charge memo after a lapse of more than 19 years from the date of petitioner's appointment is illegal' arbitrary' and contrary 7 to the Government,s guidelines under G.O.Ms.No.679, dated 01.11.2008, which mandate the conclusion of departmental enquiries within stipulated time limits. SN, J It is further the case oF the petitioner that the petitioner,s annual grade increments from 01.11.2015 onwards were unjustly withheld despite no formal order for such withholding of the said benefits had been issued against the petitioner and the petitioner,s suspension period from 25.06.2015 to 31.05.2017 remains unregularized, resulting in financial loss and disparity in pay compared to the petitioner,s colleagues. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4.P U EDT H E o D A.T eor q u n d d

07.2 1 a h r n er:- In compliance to the R N 7 4 B e o d o 3- N 2i . orders of the Hon,ble APAT Hyderabad vide reference. 11 cited ."uO *itn iimmissioner and Direcror of Schoot Education TS-i;;;b* procs. Rc. No. 1163/ser.rrr_L/20t6 o91ea, i_i!j'ti{'the District Educarionat officer Warangal U.Oan is nei"6i oroppeo tne articte of charses issued.vlde ;"f"*;;';;o".tll arong wiu-l subsequent enquires oy tne rntuiiv b?,#,"''=" Further it is proDosed_to h9l! a. fresh enquiry against Sri Mohd Abdui iehaman, SA (phy Sci). ZPSS VS 8 SN, J 9 " 9-1 .y XiXb,Y..T ?: h # il i.'"t ?ffi I fl i:TJ:i La x m i p u ra m,,1 as per the Preliminat,='Jt:''rerlience r'. cired and in j ?: ; :"#'[:il1" ll*:" i Hj i# [*" ;':[ ffi l?'""'.",lu Appeal) rules, 1991' Sri. Mohd Abdul Rehaman" SA (.PlV,Stl):l ZPSS VS Laxmipuram, Mandal l"tnlU''Uit"O' Mahabubabad district statement within 10 is directed to submit "'l)rt"t"i"i""ie ;i";';;;;iwritten statement of days of the receipt "' his/her defense' Sri. Mohd Abdul Rehaman" SA I-Plv.StJ)f ' ZPSS VS i r;," ; ; U rf g*."d*in Ti'. :|!';:'i' fl' ?S, S:1T :: iii:'J'#?S Jlll 1ffi!::'J' :;; ;i ;;'itig9'' H" sho u rd' '".,i therefore, speclfically uihit oi deny each article of charge' Sri. Mohd Abdul Rehaman" SA (Phy'Sci)" ZPSS VS Laxmipuram, Mandal n'iti''til'otO"O' Mahabubabad district is further informed tn.il'if i"/rn" d'o"t not submit his/her written statement of "O"f"nt" on or before the date soecified in the above p]t"u-Oi uno'e further action will be ffiil":i' t;;;i;; the materiar avalabre' Attention of Sri' Mohd Abdul Rehamun'^:A (Phy Sci)' --- ^ , Mahabubabad' zPSS VS tu**'pJt""'"' rqanaat -Rule the AP civil Mahabubabad district it'*i[o to 24 "i-g?' under which no Govt' 'of Services (Conduct) n'f" Servantshallbring*'.tt",pt,tobring^.anypoliticalor any- superior authority to outside influence to O"Jt- further his/her interes'tl"in lJ.pu.t df any matter dealt with 'pon in these proceedings it:';ill"'b!- p;esumed that Sri'Mohd AbdulRehaman,,sA(pnysci)"zls9.y:-Lu'mipuram' Mandal Mahabubabad,'i"i"iJ'61oud ditttitt is aware of such a representation'and-if'ut ii nut been.made at his/her -0" taken against his/her for instance and action *ili ;i;i;il;; oi nute 24 or APGS (conduct) Rules' The receipt of the Memo shall be acknowledged' 9 d. I T eo d r f h Trib unal t a Hvd o A. .34 3 o extractedh ereundel":- sN,J A d r Pr s d ts t IV a

07.07.2 01s a o ro h ss e iti n rl The applicant was appointed as Seconda ry Grade Teacher in the year 1996 a nd later promoted as School Assistant. He filed this O.A. questioning the pro ceedings issued b the 1tt ent in Rc. No.978 v /84/2013-7 dated 25.06.201 respond 5 R R . -as The counser for. the 2' appricant submits that the appticant is workino fo. rh;';;;i'' ,t"y"u., uno is discharging his dutie-s Teacher, but placing him under suspension pendino enquiry is totairy r"i"r.";,"0 because the enquiry wiil bj with,reeard-tJ li,.";;;";,;;; and it wiil be decided by a Medicai B;i ".il"Iuluo on the certificates produced by him. 3. Heard the learned Government pleader also. 4. In view of the above.facts and circumstances, balance of convenience does ,lie in iuror.--or-'lnJ appticant. Therefore, pendinq furrher o.d";; H; p".o."uling, i.rrua in Rc. .No.978/8{/2073_7, dated 25.06.2015 of the 1,t re hereby suspen ded a n d- ih;- i; respondent :".;?:ld:it .a to continue the appticanr is- S-ecionOary CraOe i."::ra""..,:a 10 SN, J However, this order does not preclude the respondents r.o- ptJiJ!-ainls against the applicant in the disciptina'v actiJnGtJ" uv tne department' 5. Admit. lssue notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks c s The coun r a led nb half of h r n f r r 1 B. I further submit that in order to hold an enquiry ]guinrt tne Jerinquent iervant relevant article of charges imouted against n'rn u-iO" District E{u91tio.nal Officer tl,)J.ii?a, i"ttti-*r,rii"I piot' at' No's7B IB4/2013- 1 Dt'26- rute 20 of APCS (CCA) Rules 09-2015 in accordance "iiin isgt-in" ippri.unt herein was submitted his defense statement duly denying ihe charges' The entire matter was ;;iJ.!'*,e oist'iii collecior' warangal.& chairman "iiJi.i.i i"r"ction commidee ror orders bv the [ir.'Jn:, il'."i" iiriuiio*r offi"cer Eistwnile waransal District The District Collector, Warangat & chairman of District committee na. oro"."i'Jn'Lnquiry under rule.20 of APCS -appointing additional loint " nri* rsrt aurv -inquir- -officer -the Eie .& the District Collector, Warangal Jt iirilii"l"r ori."it, wu,.ungur (Erst while) Officer vide District rO-"ationai Officer' Warangal Ir' Rc' -as ilo.g7el;a/zor: Dt'12-01-2016 and the same was intimated to the a PPlicant' presenting

9. The Enquiry Officer issued notice to the applicant to ittenO the enquiry on 19-03-2016 vide Notice rrro.+glccZn:Clzor'o Dt: 26-02-2016, accordingly the uppfi.anr'*us attend the Enquiry. For further course of enlri.V the Enquiry Officer sent the Physically ianOicipp.a Certificate of the applicant to medical Board of Khammam for Genuinity as the said celtificate was issued by District Medical Board Khammam vide Lr'No' \ 1l 49/CC/AJC/2016 dti process. 26-03-2016 and the enquiry is under SN, J !n c d db al Di r! o r individua for sa nct e Di h t s n w ver h e I has not of An n ual 1 I b t a e t n e iti n r to alO E u r A n a G a e o th r s resD ectivelv submat th tth sub mi ed anv AD lication r d In m n 11. I respectfully aPproached beFore a r e s 4t da e2 .o .2 24 n tn SUbmit that the petitioner here in the 4th respondent and m ade an n o u nth m e d ca to al O r tn n e re ue .II a u r e er s h o era dw e r r f, o e.' Dis ct n G V rn 6 o2 2 t br u d n T la r a f f Di tri Lr. Rc.No .60 80 A3/2o2 erc ur d c e s r w a r v de Mah bu ba ad 2 ,2 2 a d e h s e a a e a on in th D 7 Th Div si B ch ud men of thi Co 2 4 a edi w.P. o.1 65 20L tse hereunder:- ]. Case of respondent No.1 is that while he was working as Selection Grade Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Commjttee, Guntur, petitioner No.I vide G.O.Rt.No.915] lgrl.-rtyr" & Cooperation (VrG-Ir) Department, dated 0.1.09.2004, issued a charge memo framing Articles of charges for his alleged hisconduct namlly he has withdrawn an amount of Rs.2.00 crores from State Bank of / t2 SN, ] I . ", /rrra:-l r\'- Ja^'-^ -, r..6;c 'p D Account) ""d-*l-t':l:"'f:H*[l: OirIatot. of jlj'"'"1 'iq.tz.zoos' n' r,.,rli2 Genefal rur rur .' l-Ort priOr permlsslo.n in"'entntu aglk ,I'tl-- commissioner c(- t tt," i; 9jf 1, : :,nj.*Y,.i"';' ;:' ";'x;; ; ;i ": "1":1,, ^r-.t,,atino. l-l€ suut"''*l ot r,1o.1865, AgrlCt - rh ffi iii Vide.( charqe ,,,=,,,v. - -,. *3;51])un,]"ir6o l't coop".lllol ju'Y;tl,.'" 11$";; ^. o,li:;$ r, o'jiii' o z' og' zooo' h"- hu'- y": ",,1i![ :t3".' n uaiton, he G. (r. r<r'': r"- - - -n^ attai ni ns the a-ee "l:: ?:t:[i;Jsi ns' tne :_!^ c6r\^(e. \J,, "'--.. '11,"-ji't'.- service orr --'--. ^ €r.rm 01.08.2006 to ,--"-tll:: ";;d" increments i'e','''l'l'""^l'"ionsidering t"l "i3', o iigi nur Appl ication y^t^t,'' '5lii';eta ro to -orders were passeo-]Iono"ii so't' Yl^"?-'i"i'1., no the fact ttl"' l::, l.,lo increments ot resP( 'iJoqig" :j, T,lY*"n ifl:",;:;'il ilp"prrcution d i recti ns the ':?,,TJ'.'J:"1:I5X?:::it{i#":?iiin:"S;l':':[l';; ["ii"O "r that order' eight weeks trom LIrtr uore v' in fO 2009. FOf nul , "B;:";" UELrLtvr '-' - ,r,i",1i.tqtrfi#fl -f*ri+",,"'ffi t,td-,H ^'-'."'' ;II'^- -.lrow 'Pu blic Service Com m tsstt'ril notice, d ated and the same were confirmed; that a show rilpono"nt uo 1 as to why the 05.12.2009, *u' "or and gratuity '"ti""o"to Denaltv of witnnorJii "ntit" 'pension "ugu]n;t-hirn the Andhra should not o" l'npo'Jo -:tl^"t Pradesh Revised t""ti"t n;ies' rSgO and hence' she prays to-J-asiOe the imPugned order' 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No'1 the authorities contended ,nut tn"r"" it no l'p"Oitent 'for for release of annrai g-.ui" inir"*ents.in spite of the fact that respond.nt no'r"'ilt Jrit"a under suspension and therefore, the order under challenge- needs no interference bv this Court as it Oo"i not suffei from any infirmities so ul to iaf f for intefference by this Court' 5. Facts are not in dispute' Respondent No'1 was placed under suspension foifri's alleged misconduct of committing of certain lrregutarllies in-Jisinarging his duties' A regular was conOuctLd after framing the departmental "nqrl.y ..,'i SN. J l3 articles of cha rges. The enqui and submitt a report to th that issue i s not required t Writ petiti on, because th against th e order of e Wri the Tri a 0 .o h o I s d n t' di .e f f officer conducte isciplinary auth answered in t Petition i r r d enquiry ority. But the presen t s chalienged reunder tt€ a

6. Under F.R.24 a n increment shall a mafter of cou rse unless it is orders we re passed withhold incremen ts under suspensi ordina withhetd. ing of respondent No.1 though on for a period of three .o rily be drawn as Admittedty, no . annual grade he was placed years. fn the t r o I ,7. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. The be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pencling shall stand closeo. re sha ll if any, h Div 6 4 hereunder: - e c din w J d n o isC u d t o 6 018 s t c d The Telanqana State Education and Welfare Infrastructure corporarion, HG;J;;"ln"ereinarter, .rhe :::IlT"i: Lofporation'), the respondent in W.p.No.968 of 2008, is in appeal aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2018 passed bv a leafned iUdge of this Court allowing the said writ petition with qrant to the writ l*tt-."JOiiecting the appellant-coipgi?:iol^:" petitioner all consequerfii Uenefits which had been withheld on .t_ 14 SN, J account of promotion, issuanceoftheimpugnedChargeMemo,includinghis within a time frame' By interim order dated 28.01'2008 this Court susPended the said petition, hearing arg uments in the maln writ Petition, passed Charge R n R in the writ Memo. UPon r r r r r r Sri A.Yadava Reddy' learned counsel.'for the appellant- Corporation, woutO nowEilr p"i"t "" th.1t !r: vigilance report which led to the issuan;; ih" Charge l4emo,to the petitioner was dated 1e.09.2003";; ;h;t"i";"; ql.t.delav could not be taken to be from tne Veai'igg+' ie woutO therefore submit that iirposition of costs was not warranted' We find merit in this submission ' That apart, the learned counsel would also point out that the learned Judge did # t[iirv "i to whether the consequential benefit, in the form or i.'iotitn,-was to be,notional' He would point out that the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition was \ / t5 l#'lT!"tli,l'',',;:I:t':: as a Deputv Executive Ensineer rrom respondent-wi,, i"i,,,ii^-'ere, .promoted and tn".i,roil, "tn" ,.m* ;;"',-'J fl,, il : il" ;:J;[:, mX i.!,:ll'' ?'Jff ,rfiLffi SN, J ,-uroo,i#n,-tJi,','go:l[[X11 ruo, rearned counser ror rhe does not dispute the Fact ,r,"a i,l ctrent onty sought no,,olll'- promotion on par with nis;unioi.'a'ni not.non"iary o1nui,li."''u' the e upon the appell respondent_ On the above anal ysis, the writ appeal is allowed onl xtent of setti ng aside the impositi on of costs of Rs.3 ,oo0/- Yto t the ant Corporation and clarifying tha D U s o c N L SI

5. Learned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner submits that initiation of enquiry and issuing articles of charge vide proc Rc.No.97g,/B 4/Bg/2OLg_1, dated O8.O7.201-7 by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner based on newspaper artacles, dated 22.OL.2OL3, 23.01.2013, and 24.O1.2OL3 alleging that certain candidates are setected under hearing handicapped quota by producing fake hearing handicapped certificates under theDsCrecruitmentsduringtheyears1996-2()1.2is baseless and illegal' SN, I oA.O7.z[t|issued

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenges the said articles of charge memo' dated to the petitioner by the 2d respondent firstly, on the ground that no charge memo can be issued pertaining to selections held during the years Lg96'2O12 secondly though the petitioner in the year 2oL7 ' submitted his defense statement on 2,''O7'2OL7 in response to the charge memo' dated O8'07'2O17 issued to the petitioner and the petitioner even attended the enquiry on 19'03'2016' however' the said enquiry initiated against the petitioner way back in the year 2O17 had not attainecr any finarity as on date in spite of earlier orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at favour of the Petitioner dated Hyderabad, obtained in O.A.No.34O3 ol 2OLS. and also O7.O7.2Oa5 Passed in favourable orders vide Division Bench iudgment of this Court, dated O7.O3'2O17 passed in W'P'No'5054 ot 2OL7' thepetitionerhadbeenindeedvictimizedyetagaininthe year 2O1l7 and therefore, the entire proceedings stand vitiated and the same are malafide and hence' the ) 17 petitioner is entifled for the relief as petitioner in the present writ petition. sN, r Prayed for by the 7 I r I o a o t d aqalnst the DC tti toner Detitton er m de a e b rs tn DTogre s nd re d t and further that a D cation da ed

22. o 3. 2024 o e e d n u d fncre ments and actinq the 4th res DOn ent re rfl n(I to Governmen Memo. d ted 26.02.20 1 bro o ht on th e sa D A t e o o th s o t or s r rs or ta f r vidEDroceedtnqs, dated 23 .o3. 2024 of the Di tion toffi t, Mahabu babad andord ers are awatted u o 4 n t a h a t e e u m r e e Edu of h e bv the D iti eri n tlo er ln the D a r a n r a sent Writ Petit lon. 18 SN. J

8. A bare perusal of the record indicates that articles of charge memo' dated O8'O7'2O17 had been issued against the petitioner pertaining to DSC recruitments. '::" hearing handicapped candidates quota during the years tgg6'2't2and though' the petitioner had submitted his defense statement and also attended the enquiry on 19.03.2016 as admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents at para Nos' 8 & 9 (referred to and extracted above)' yet admittedly no orders had been passed as on date' and the petitioner made a request vide application dated 22'0,3'2024 for release of pending Annual Grade Increments from 01.11.2015 onwards and the same had even been forwarded to the 5th respondent referring to memo' dated 26.,o2.2,,'3 for passing of necessary orders for taking further course of action by the 4th respondent herein vide hisletter,daterl22.o3.2024|yetnoordershadbeen passed by the 5th respondent' admiftedly even as on date' This Court opines that the petitioner cannot be g. penalized under the pretext of pending enquiry for years \ t9 sNr together, this court opines that the issuance of articles of charge memo against the petitioner. dated Og.O7.2Ol7, pertaining to selections of hearing handicapped quota candidates in the years tgg6_2(lli2is itself unjustified and the said detay is even unexplained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondentsr and this Court opines that the petitioner cannot be put to any further mental agony and suffering at this length of time. 10. Th e d A e c u Vs D T N o 6s o B 3 n n rti u a 8 o t a V n o r N s6 &1 r s h o a n the ao fidavit s case. It rs stated in b erv da n e 6. Mr. prabhakar also inv ited our attention to the af filed by the appell ant in support of hi para 14 of the affidavit that the respo ndent wi ht e fi e e aga lnst lla nt eve tncl dent of t 9 o n o oh th e alleqe d a n e deed was o e r a n eo and that very reason for issuin g charge memo was that the appeltant could be detained From promoting to the post of Chief Engineer of the Housing 11, Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that allOWing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time wilt be preludicial to the appellant' Keepins a hisher ;il ;;;Lti;;;; onitiut uno"i'lhu's"' or corruption and f th Board. rt r I l I i:, 20 SN, J e I c disPuted integritY would cause unbearable mental agonY and distress to the officer co ncerned. r t o e e t o r h e r c e r r f f n r draw the At this stage, it is necessary to ellant had o Put an end to the enquiry. The aPP emolovees' alreadY suffered enough and more on account of the curtain and t edings. As a matter of fact, the mental and sufferi ngs of the aPPellant due to the Protracted disciPl inarY Proceedi ngs wor.ild be much more than the department in the Proce dure for initia ting the di sclplin a rY proceedings, the aPPellant should not be made to suffer. ti t the mistakes committed bY p unish ment ' tinarY Proce disciP For n c o 1 T h o v h t d e i) The Court of A'P' vs' A'Rajeswar Reddy reported in 2o1o(3) ALD Page 5o1 (DB) ii) M.V.B.Jilani Vs' Union of India and Others reported in 2006 (5) SCC Page 88' iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs' Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 57O' iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs' Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC Page 3O5' \ 21

4.,. v) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2O.l2(11) SCC SN. J

565. L2 o f 2 t4 A b re Deru lo h e I om e t d e o o 4 f r t n e h fa Div! ion B nch No I 5 s di r f no e a fw o d n a nn al r de n r m n wi hhold th emoloyee. d h sa m e d urinq the susD r s d o ord r a s db h n c n t eriod of a n s r e n tre tn !n DEtitione r. n u r d c m n s n e t e e ru al of th D vt B n h u u a ed 2 o 2 d n N 4of 2 cl ea Iv ind ca sth t tssu nceofa ch ro Me mo belatedlv s n ar a te em lo v a t r n e m an s a h m thereu der was entitl ed forno lona I oro otio n as DeD utv i) a) c b SN, I r s e t o T The aforesaid facts and circumstance s of the case' made bY the learned counsel of the Petitioner and'' learned Services-I aPPearing on b) The aPPearing submissions on behalf Assistant Government Pleader for behalf of the resPondents' e averments made in the counter affidavit filed on of the respondents (referred to and extracted c) Th behalf above) d) The order impugned Proc Rc'No'978.lF.4t8.3tzO13-1' respondent No'2 dated Oa.O7'2OL7 passed by the (referred to and extracted above) e) The earlier orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad' dated ()7'o7'zols passed in O.A.No'34o3 of 2O15 in favour of the pet'tioner' eV rl e li t e d below:- 23 SN, J $#l!ffii"j"+*[.^T:t.:::],*.,:*"$,.:# [i:.i :1,[t;:11,[#x,,: ? 3.i":i ;i,j; i &H: ##d:"H#::xi{id:.t:::t'i$1r.,?,.",i1 "il,#x:ffi :::. jl,;o"#,.*,:::.7 iJ,,#,#[i:,,.:fl ,? #;,:l1l ;',1,i; #; t,ti, B1ya vi) M.V.B.Jitani \ ou,..' ;;;;;iJ' :; rr1?, r r'S:..:0,# rr.r,o,, and vii) State of punjab vs' chamnlal Goyat reported in 19e5 ,rl 333 uortf.ttt r R e d d y re p o rte d i El3*:",[::;,".i$H.,3;s1]ffs: rf:,':fjl; #,fl i?lt ::,::LT fi jJ," JJ; "ojf; *" ",, e) T D vt c d m s 7 o 4 6 2 1 d n s din nd extr ed above o 5 6 4of s 1 ?,.r!." J, t d r n a r 24 SN, ] T I n r n ouirv initi t r o1 a o a ed aqainst the etitlo ern n d 3 t ba k n e n n t e h v e 5th t e f don nt D a e d r I l i An n n Dendi nq con sid atto ev n I \ r n e t ind n t e r d te 2 2. 0 3. 2o 24 3 f o r e n r e r s o d bv th e o e s 5th r e e n Th s n P lt w c eme o d 0 .o7. 0 7 s e t el e t- sl e c ns ert n h r o e s r d e t et o ro e f t| 1 1 s a r w 1 t n o w r n lo e f t n d id ra n nd h '."*- I ) \ '| 25 s f he A d v s w I v r t e d r d o d I In f de I I no r er t u tc SN, J r r o r f e r Miscellaneous petitions, if Petition, shall stand closed. dfry, pendinq in this Writ //TRUE COPYII SD/-A.H.S. S SHANKAR -GOWRI IANT REGISTRAR One fair copy to the HON,BLE MRS J USTICE S (For His Lordship's Kind peru r) To SECTION OFFICE R PALLI NANDA ggffiffi i,$;ur*,iir**+*ii;,ffi a, sch oo r Ed ucatio n I ne pnncipal Secretarv. G, o"pa,tme n t, su"i;i;;ji ff IdT?[,",T3:l?:l: " " 1 1 L.R. Copies. The Under Secretary. Unio Affairs, New Delhi. n of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Advocates Association Library, Hish court SERVICES-I' High court ror the state or rerangana at ilffi1?f;;relansana i'ffi.?rtt;l: t"otuii- .One CC to SRI ARVIND KUMAR KATA, Advocate topucl Two CD Copies 1 2 J 4 E

6. 7 B.

9. 10 11 12 I )l I SA BS - C.C. TODAY -', ,. i- S \i! * ! ! 5!P 2025 -l': I i .:, I .j-r .t - 1. =,^, .r''.']. - l- ':'...-.--.:,' ,/, ';)- I l I II l I i. { HIGH COURT DATED:27t}6t2O2s ORDER WP.No.16479 of 2023 ALLO\I{ING THE W.P WIHOUT GOSTS. $