l\I. Murali v. 23.5.2021 and also the report of District Employment Office. 1t.22.5.2022

Heard Sri M.V. Ramana, learned counsel appearang on behalf of petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il, appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under: ".........to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring orders passed by the District Collector in Proceedings No.PTl3195/2020 dt.tl.12.2020 terminating the services of the petitioner as lunior Panchayat Secretary on the ground of misconduct based on the reports cost stigma punitive as illegal, arbitrary and violates Articles 14, ].6,21 and 311 (2) of Constitution of India and contrary to the ludgement rendered by the Apex Court and consequently declare that the petitloner is z entitled to continue in service break with all monitory and benefits in the interest ofjustice and to pass without th e. consequent i SN, J u/P t;4-58 2021 being any a ttenda n t

3. The case of the petitioner rn brir: SD ert he I : oetitioner in u ort of th e Wri Peti un!er:- The petitioner was appointed as panc I ryat Secretary Grade IV by District coilector vide orderdated 1. 34.201g with a condition that the services of the petitioner will be regularized after completion of 3 years and the petitt{) rer joined on 12.O4.20t9. While the petitioner was working, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 07.OB.ZO2O lased on the reports of the District panchayat OFficer, Kallur arr the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kallur alleging misuse of funcs The District Panchayat Officer conducted enquiry on Zlt)7.2020 and suspended the petitioner until conclusion of departmental proceedings. However, on 0g.09.2020 the petrt oner was re_ instated into service pending enquiry. Subsequenily, the District panchayat Office -, Khammam issued a show cause notice dated 26.02.2020 to he petitioner based on the report of Divisional panchayat ( fficer, dated 06.O2.2020. On 30.04.2020 the petitioner submirt:d a detaited I I "i J SN. I wP t7458 2021 reply. However, the District Collector, Khammam straight away issued an order of termination on L7.L2.2020 without providing any further notice to the petitioner. As per the directions of District Collector, Khammam on 04.tt.2020, the Deputy Director, State Audit, Khammam submitted a report on 17.03.2021 stating that there was no misappropriation of funds' Thereafter, the District Employment Officer, Khammam submitted another report dated 22.05.2022' The petitioner submitted representations dated L9.02.2021, 03'01 2022 and

20.01.2022. Aggrieved by the proceedings No'Pfl3l95/2020, dated :It.l2.2O2O of the District Collector, Khammam terminating the services of the petitioner as Junior Panchayat Secretary, the petitioner has approached the Court by filing the present writ Petition.

4. PE USED THE REC ORD. (A) Di rec I e ort nof Kha am vid Lr.D u s N 4 2 -24 d 7 3 2L is h ereu nder: "In this regard the Sarpanch and Secretaries submitted orally that they have followed the instructions issued by the enquiry officer and Dpo and passing cheques to individuals 4 SN, J wP_1715E 202:] separately. On verification of records it has br t the enquiry, it reveals that sarpanch and secrel i having the knowledge above passing the cheque the guidance has been made by the authority rl been followed by them. It is a orocedurat lallj there are no misaoorooriat,ion funds". n noticed in rles has not ;, whenever e same has e onlv and (B) Relevant portion of the Enqrr..1 rv reoort of District Employment Officer, Khammarrr /Sinoa renil2O22. dated 22.05.2O22 ir extra cted ide Lr.N hereunder: "As per the above insDection of wor rs. c rtain Drocedura I laDses have been observed. Further, it is noticed that, the lapses obse -ved by the then Enquiry officer i.e. the District Audit offir t ., state Audit, Khammam in respect of the enquiry of iingareni Gram Panchayath and the report submitted earlier to the District Authorities holds good". (c) Relevant oortion of the Procer:r linos of the (Panchavat Winq) Khammam vde Proc.No. Col lector P2t 3 951202(J. I7.L2.2(J20 services of the Detita ner as Junior Pancha I at Secretarv onthe oround of miscondu is extra ed heI:under: terrr inatin "Keeping in view of the above, Sri M. l,l I ali, Junior Singareni ol Singaren i Panchayat Gor rvaram of Panchayat Secretary, Mandal now working at Ex-G.P Gram 1 5 SN, J wP 17458 2021 Konijerla Mandal is hereby terminated from Services with immediate effect. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Konijerla is requested to serve the order upon Sri M. Murali, lunlor Panchayat Secretary, G.P., Gopavaram of Konijerla Mandal and send the served copy with date to this office for record ".

5. The lea rned counsel aDoeafln oonbe half of oeti roner ma inlv outs forth the followinq submiss ons: (i) In response to the show cause notice vide Rc.No.P2l3195/20t9'2, dated 26.02.2020 seeking explanation From the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 30.04.2020 denying the allegations levelled against the petitioner. (ii) Based on the report oF Divisional Panchayat Officer dated 06.02.2020, certain allegations were levelled against the petitioner. (iii) However, another report dated 29.07'2020 had been submitted behind the back of the petitioner without giving notice. Based on the said report dated 29 'O7 '2020 , the authorities had passed the termination order dated 11'12'2020' (lv) Since, the foundation for termination in the present case is misconduct, the respondents are bound to conduct a -1 6 SN. J wP t7458 202.1 regular departmental enquiry after issuing a < harge memo and providing reasonable opportunity to the pet t oner. However, no regular enquiry as mandated under the C(- \ rules had been cond ucted . (v) Since the reports of the Deputy Dir::tor, State Audit, Khammam dated 17.03.2O21 and the Djst.ict Employment Officer report dated 22.05.2022, had findings in favour of the petitioner herein, the subject issue requires r€ _onsideration by the 3'd res pon den t- D istrict Collector, Khamman . (vi) The 3'd respon den t/District Colk: tor, Khammam without considering the detailed reply dir ed 30.O4.2020 furnished by the petitioner in response to sl- r w cause notice dated 26.02.2020 issued to the petitioner here r, proceeded to pass the order impugned which is contrary o the findings contained in the Audit report dated L7.03.2021 a rd the report of the District Employment Officer, dated 22.05.2i 22 (referred to and extracted above). Based on the aforesaid submissions, the i:arned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends thr t the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for by the l) ,titioner in the present writ petition. 7 (vii) The Aoex Court in the Ju omen SN. J wP 17458 2021 inD ioti N N hBo 1 2la e 25 n s Pra h e Vs. ref r Bas Sci s c 1 99 s 60 u nder: commu nications bY the Di rector to the appellant which contain material amountinq to' 'stiqma" and also because these docume nts and the record of the case clea rlv esta blish that it is a case where certain findings arrived at in a non-departmental *-6IE *"r" the "foundation" for the terminatlon and it is not a case where'certain allegations agarnst the appellant could be treated as lhe "motive" behind the order. He contended that the Administrative Otficer's reports in his favour were not considered by the Director' The communications to fhe appellant contained not only certain allegations but clear adverse frndings by the Director as well as by a aorn-.itt"" and they were the foundation' The differences between ihe Director and the Administrative Officer led to the appellant being made the scapegoat 'an

21. lf findings were arrived at ln an enquiry as to misconduct' behind ihe bacr 6f tne officer or without a regular departmental tn" simple order of termination is to be treated as "founded' -tne' ""qri.V, attegations and will be bad. But if the enquiry was not held' no tindinga- *",e arrived at and the employer was not inclined to enquiry but, at the same time, he did not want to conduct continue the employee against whom there were complaints' it *orlJ o"fy be a caie of iotive and the order would not be bad' Si.if"r. i. in" position if the employer did not want to enquire into tf'" trrtn of the allegations because'of delay in regular departmental froceedings or he ias doubtful about securing adequate evidence' in such a iircumstance, the allegations would be a motive and not ine tounOation and the simple order of termination would be valtd' 8 SN. J u/P t-{51,t 2021

25. ln the matter of "stigma", this Court h. s effect which an order of termination may have on a prospects of employment is a matter of relevant cc the seven-Judge Bench decision in Samsher Si Punjabl(1974) 2 SCC 831 : 1974 SCC (L&S) s observed that if a simple order of termination w:I would enable the officer to "make good in other walltr a stigma". lt was also stated in Bishan Lal G,t, Haryana [(1978) 1 SCC 202 : '1978 SCC (L&S) 55] fl contained a stigma, the termination would be bad fcr concerned must suffer a substantial loss of reputati affect his future prospects". held that the )erson's future rsideration. ln lh v. State of tol Ray, C J passed, that of life without la v. State of at if the order 'the individual rn which may (vii) The A x Court in the Judomer t in Un ion of India and Others Vs. Maha veer C. Sino tr, 'i r orted in ( 201ntR cc 22O a os.42 anA 4 I are extracted t riar- N E hereunder: "42. From the facts as disclosed and thr, ;ubmissions made on behalf of the respective parties, there is (fle doubt in our minds that the Order dated 13-6-2002, rr which the respondent was discharged from service, was punitive in character and had been motivated by consider trons which are not reflected in the said order.

45. Since the High Court has gone into t e matter in depth after perusing the relevant records anc :he learned Additional Solicitor General has not been able tc )ersuade us to take a different view, we see no reason to int€r 3re with the judgment and order of the High Court impugned ir the special leave petition. Not only is it clear from the materia ; on record, but even in their pleadings the petitioners have themselves admitted that the Order of '13-6-2002, had beer issued on account of the respondent's misconduct and that misconduct was the very basis of the said order. That beirg so, having regard to the consistent view taken by this Co I t that if an order of discharge of a probationer is passed ir a punitive measure, without giving him an opportunity ,) defending himself, the same would be invalid and liable to t e quashed, and the same finding would also apply to the r,spondent,s case". 9 SN. J wP 17458 2021 6 The relevant oortion of the averments in oartic u lar at oara-Nos.5, 6 a nd 7 of the counter a davit is extracted hereu nder: *5. In reply to the para No.4 (b), it is respectfully submitted that. Sri M. Murali has been issued Show Cause Notice by the District Collector (Panchayat wing). Khammam vide Rc. No. P2l3195/2019 Dated 26-02-2020 for seeking explanation from the individual why the action shall not be initiated under CCA Rules for termination from service as per the agreement made by the petitioner for the above said lapses and show cause notices have also been issued to the Sarpanch and Upa Sarpanch vide Rc No' P2/3195 /2019. Dated: 26.02.2O2O accordingly, thev have submitted their explanations. On the explanations submitted by the Sarpanch, Upa-sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary, it has been called the report from the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kalluru. In turn he has submitted his remarks vide Rc. No. DIVI/2/2O19, Dated: 30.06 2020 stating that, the Sarpanch, Upa Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretaries have drawn the amounts during their tenure with procedural lapse and misused the amount and executed the works in the Gram Panchayat to a tune of Rs' 29,96,8061- as per their wish and will without following existing norms and without maintaining the proper records ie. without passing the Gram Panchayat resolutions, Meeting Agenda Register, Minutes Register, etc' further, It is submitted that, as per the instructions of the District Collector (PW), Khammam, the District Panchayat Officer, Khammam conducted a detailed enquiry on 29-07-2020 l0 SN. J wP t7li8 202-'l and submitted a report concluding that, the t,arpanch and Upa Sarpanch drawn an amount oF Rs 22,61I,5g9l- (Procedural Iapse for Rs.9,55,094/- and t'1is lppropriation for amount of Rs L3,06,504/-) and th r panchayat Secretary did not follow rules for drawl .of :l e funds and generated the cheques without observinc the Gram Panchayat resolution, bills, vouchers and M I records and stock entry of the material purchased Bt;ing on the enquiry report of the District panchayat Office r Khammam, Notices were issued to Sarpanch and Upa-:; rrpanch G.p. Singareni oF Singareni Mandal. simultaneouslv Sri M.Murali, Junior Panchayat Secretary and Sk. Sidd r ue, Regular Panchayat Secretary were placed under su; rension vide District Collector (PW), Khammam Proc. No.t),/31,95/2OZO Dated: O7.08.2020

6. In reply to the Para No.4(c) o'the counter affidavit is partly admitted and parUy denied. I is admitted that Section 43 of the Telangana State panci i yat Raj Act. 2018 casts upon the Panchayat Secretary he duty of custody and maintenance of Gram panchaya _ records and that the Panchayat Secretary is requireci o maintain accounts, vouchers, bills and resolutions in acr:, rdance with law. It is denied that the petitioner was lawfull, terminated without due procedure or for reasons not cont:mplated by the bond agreement and the provisions app i:able to his appointment. Without prejudice to the for: toing, it is submitted that on account of persisten_ lapses in maintaining Gram Panchayat records, failu- to follow prescribed procedures in incurring expenditu-r , and non observance of bills, vouchers and Gran panchayat SN, J wP 17458 202i resolutions, procedural misconduct and dereliction of duties were noticed on the part of the petitioner. In view of such lapses and in exercise of the powers vested in the appointing authority. the District Collector. Khammam, issued orders of termination of the petitioner's services vide Proc No P2/3195/2O20, dated tL.72.2020

7. It is further submitted that at the time of his appointment the petitioner executed a bond/agreement providing inter alia "that if his performance as Junior Panchayat Secretary on consolidated remuneration basis was found unsatisfactory during the probation period, his services could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason". The authority acted in terms of the said bond / agreement and the provisions governing probationary appointments: accordingly, the termination was lawful, justified and in the interest of public service". The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Servicers-Il aDDearinq on behalf of resDondents puts forth the followino submissions: (i) The petitioner had indulged in misappropriation of funds and, since the same amounted to misconduct a detailed enquiry had been conducted (ii) A show cause notice dated 26.02.2020 had been issued to the petitioner and the reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the said show cause notice was duly considered. {i F $ ! !l I I I I I l f I : i I ! i t2 SN. J wP 1r4-_i8 2023 (iii) The reports of Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kalluru, dated 30.06.2020 and District Panchayat Ofli :er, Khammam, dated 29.07.2020 clearly recorded findin I j against the petitioner. Based on the said reports the impt gned order had been passed. Based on the aforesaid submissi )ns, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of respondents contends that there is no illegality t s alleged by the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled fo| any relief in the present writ petition. DISCUSSION AND CO NCLUSION:

7. A bare perusal of the averments made at f ara No.1l of the counter afFidavit filed on behalf of the respon: :nt No.4 clearly indicates that, upon the instructions of the I istrict Collector, Khammam, the District Employment Officer ht d conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 25.05.2022 stating that as per the inspection of works certain procedural apses had been observed. Further, at para No.20 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4, it is clearly rlmitted that no misappropriation was found in the present wor <s but however, certain procedural lapses were noticed. It is fu ther stated that the services of the petitioner had been terminatr d and, since the I I l l3 SN. J l|I 17,158 2021 services of petitioner had been terminated in the Government, there was no provision for petitioner's reappointment.

8. A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter arfidavit indicates that the District Collector proceeded with the enquiry against the petitioner without issuing a charge memo without conducting any regular enquiry and straight away passed the order impugned terminating the services of the petitioner u n ila tera lly.

9. This Court opines that, in view of the fact as borne on record that the very basis and foundation of charge against the petitioner is alleged misconduct, the same formed the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings, which eventually led to the passing of the order of termination, the reports pertaining t0 enquiry conducted by the District Employment Officer and the Divisional Panchayat Officer dated 06.02.2O20, 30.04.2020 and

29.07.2020 behind the back of the petitioner cannot be the basis for passing the order impugned, when admittedly as borne on record the Reports. dated 17-03-2021 and 22-05-2022 (referred to and extracted above) held that the petitioner did not indulge in any misappropriation of funds and it was only a case of I! :€ 1 t4 5N. J wP t 74i8 t02l procedural lapses. This Court opines that the orl:r impugned is vitiated in view of the fact as borne on record l-rat no regular enquiry had been conducted admittedly in the prt sent case duly issuing a charge memo to the petitioner r erein and no reasonable opportunity admittedly had been given to the is contrary to the very :onduct of the and the said fact hav ng not been disputed even by the learned Assistant Gover-r ment pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. enquiry under CCA rules petitioner herein. which

10. Ta ki nq into con sad ration: (a ) The aforesaid facts and circumsl:t nces of the case, (b) The submissions made by the teat ned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, ancl the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_.[ ., appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The submissions made in the courter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 in parr acular para_ Nos. 6, 9, I-l, 12 and 2O, (d) The reports dated O6.02.2O2O,3O,il6.2g2g .n6 29.O7.2O2O and the audit,.rs report dated 1,, 3.2021 and l5 SN. ] uP t7458 2021 23.O5.2O21 and the report of the District Employment Officer dated 22.05.202O with its findings in favour of the petitaoner (referred to and extracted above), (e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para-Nos.7 to 9 of the present order, The writ Detition is allo ed. The order i mouqned rinN .PT la. oq / 2020 tho Distri at til2 rcsed lr v dated 11. t2.2O2O is set asid e and the matter is remitted to resoon dent No.3 to recon ider the subiect is ue afresh orders in accordance to law, in and oas5 aDDroDraa confo rmatv with Drincioles of natur I iustice bv o vidinq an opportunitv of oersonal hearino to the oetitioner dulv reconsr deri nq the request of the Detitioner I ernstala a rri and to f +lr ar r e ti n r tanue th llm net o c ns + ewr h n n n be nefi aso er th e titioner'sl e al entitlement takinq rnto consideration the findinos in the Audit rED rts dated L7.O3. O21 and 21.0 5.2fJ21 and also the reDort of the Distrtct mo lo ment Officer dated 22-Os 2o2 st nce ) I d I i I i l6 mt edl t ton r n e lar en s no cha e order dated SN, J wP t7.158 l02l d h e e f ducted in the n ssued to the Di Dassinq the 11-12- 2o20 ter ni ati nqt he w tn :! J 4 f servrc of the De titioner, Ior weeks fromthedate of receiot ofa coDV of DE m n! h d :he order and fl r oetitioner. I H th re hall As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if n or er t any pending, in the Writ petition shall also stand : osed. //TRUE CO . K. BHAVANI SWAMY c :,]STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 5 6 B, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad Hyderabad 1 . The Principal Secreta ry Revenue Departmen 2. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Develcg ment, Himayatnagar, 3. The Diskict Collector, Khammam . eS tat r of Telangana, panchayar om"ei]ijrncnayar Raj and Rur: Devetopment, panchayat Officer, O/o. the Districr panr:l ayat Officer, Iiilr;*, IH#H:"#rr, ff;n3&.,"'5i?x-T.va}dit1i"fi ffi t??H?J,.*"!:ateorre,ansana Two CD Copies , 4 CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:1811212025 ORDER WP.No.17458 ot 2023 :: j i ]l(lt )E !4 ,A 1 l)it iJ * a ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS VL \c