Dasari Nagaraj Kumar v. violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of

Heard Sri S.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The etitioner a ooroached the Court seekino oraver as under: "...to call for the records from the znd and 3'd Respondents and issue an appropriate Writ Order of Direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of 3'd Respondent in proceedings Rc. No. 1924/A3/2OL92O dated 06/07 l2O2O in withholding the subsistence allowance for the period from O3IOB/2013 to L5104120t9 stating that it will be huge loss to the State Government as illegal unjust contrary to law arbitrary contrary to FR 53 contrary to law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and violative of Articles 14 and 2L of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to release the subsistence allowance from O3/OB/2013 to 15/04/2019 forthwith by granting all consequential benefits and pass..."

3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as secondary grade teacher on 30'12.1997 and based on a false complaint the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated O3.OB'2013 till L6'O4'2019, on the 2 SN, J I allegation of inisappropriation of funds. The suspension order itself ref erec that the petitioner was eligible for the s u lsistence allowance during the period of suspension as per rul:::;(FR 53). The peti :ionr:-'s further case is that during the entire :'iLSpension period tlre potitioner requested the authoritie:; fot th,,: payment of subsis;tenr:: allowance but the authorities did ncrt ccnsider the requests oI t.trer petitioner. It i:; l'u rr:l- er the case of the petitioner that the l)etitioner was acquil:teJ vide judgment dated 11.L2.2017 llass;ed by the District ,lou11 in criminal proceedings. Later on, -i'd tespondent issued di:;cirrlinary proceedings dated 29.04.?-019 to the petitione lrvith the same set of article of charges as in the above said crinrirral p,roceedings, to which the petitioner sub-r itted the detailed e xpla nation denying the charges. Tlrereafte r, a show cause n()tirre was served on the petitioner to which the' lletitioner submitt€d tlrr: detailed explanation, subsequenlly, 3'd t espondent issued the irnpugned proceedings dated 27.t15.202C imposing major punishnrent of stoppage of two annual grade in:rements with cunlulat;ve effect and treating the period of sustt:nsion as eligible l.:ave a nd the petitioner preferred appeal ar;ainsl: the said proceedincs lnd the same is still pending. Furtht:r car;e of the 3 SN, J petitloner is that the petitioner submitted representations requesting the authorities to release his subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension but the same was rejected by the 3'd respondent vide proceedings dated 06.O7.2OZO stating that the granting the subsistence allowance to the petitioner will be the huge loss to the state government. Aggrieved by the said proceedings petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- A.T he impuqned oroceedi qs Rc.No.1924lA3 20L9-20, dated O6.O 7.2O2O of the 3'd resoondent is extracted hereu nde r: - Sri D.Nagarajkumar has absconded from duty from 12.06.2013 and was kept under suspension by the DEO Warangal vide reference 1" cited, for misusing the Govt. Funds. Later the individual has approached this office for Re-instatement on 25.6.2018. As per the instructions issued by the Commissioner, School Education Telangana. Hyderabad vide reference 3 cited, the individual was Re- instated into service pending disciplinary action. Later, the Charges are framed, defense statement obtained. Enquiry Officer appointed and Report obtained vide references sth & 6th cited. Further the period of suspension was settled and punishment awarded vide reference 11th cited as per the procedure laid down under CCA Rules. Now, the individual is requesting for sanction of Subsistence allowance for the period of suspension 4 SN, J .=i vide rcrference L2 cited. The Remarks of MEO Kesamurdlram have also been obtained vicle rel'erence 13 citecl. Basinr; cn the Report of the MEO Kesamuciram v,l'o is the DD(), and as per F.R. 53 (2). Sri. D. Naga'-aja Kurnlr, SGT. MPI'}S (llteruvukommu thanda, Kesamudram mandal, Matrabutlabad District is hereby informed thet his request for p;ryrnent of subsistence allowance f'om 3.[r. 2013 to 15.,1.;ZCl ,!) is not feasible for consideratiorr on the following groJnds

1. The individual who is kept under suspension should resider ir the Headquarters only. which m,ly b,e nrted from the Susrr:nsion Orders itselF, whereas the i.tdi!iclual has abscondel from duty w.e.f.. 12.6.2013. 2. The individual has to submit NON Enrployment Certificato every month to the DDO for cla nling his subsis;ten:e allowance as per F.R. 53 (2), but he has failed to (lo so, and absconded from duty, and later canrer to light aftrlr iin:lization of criminal case. 3. -the t)aLyment of Subsistence allowance after f nalization of dis;ciJllinary proceedings i.e. settlement of su:;pension period s, rot feasible. of susoension as the

4. The amount of subsistence al lowa nce Da idl to anv individrlal has to be adiusted from the oar[nent of d!r-tJ---p9riod salarv / leave oeriod salarv se mav be. pcried- individtral's e!fg-i-Ule-.]eave, the subsiste ealutot Ee adiusted, as he is forlhc_period from 3.8.2O1 be hu_grr loss to the State Government. ince the eriod of su sDenston Is tre:ated as rid if anv ltrc-l€ave tlrLeh-will Thr: receipt forl:htarit-t of the proceedings should be ,:ckrrcwledged -' 5 SN, J B. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the resDonden ts and relevant Dara No.6 is extracted hereu der:-

6. Further I submit that the individual has neither stayed in the Headquarters nor submitted any Non-Employment Certificate to the Drawing & Disbursing Officer i.e. Mandal Educational Officer Kesamudram mandal every month, which is essential requirement for claiming his subsistence allowance as per FR 53(2), and simply ran away from the Headqua rters. Further, the petitioner has approached the District Educational Officer; Mahabubabad (newly formed district after re-organisation of Telangana State) through his appeal dt: 05.06.2018 (Copy enclosed) he admitted himself that, due to his personal needs the petitioner ha mis-used the funds sanctioned for the construction of the Additional Class Rooms due to which the petitioner was suspended vide Proc. Rc.No.B942lBLl2Ol3 dt: 03.08.2013 O/O The District Educational Officer; Warangal. And requesting to re-instate him into service, and immediately this office has addressed the Director of School Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad to issue guidelines since the period of suspension exceeds 5 years. As per the guidelines issued by the Director of School Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad, the individual was re-instated into service by posting him in the same place to necessitate the enquiry, pending dlsciplinary action. And thereafter the procedure laid down in the CCA Rules such as framing of Article of Charges, Appointment of Enquiry Officer, Issue of Show cause Notice and concluding of disciplinary proceedings, is followed strictly duly recovering the mis-used amount of individual Rs.4.30 lakhs from the individual c Enouirv Officer Reoort Proceedinos Rc.No.6 2/MRC/KSDM 2O19. dated t2.O7.2OLg ad ress ed 6 SN. J 1 I to the D.E.CI. & Ex-Officio Pro ect Officer. Mah ubabad District is extracted hereunder:- As p3r r:ference No. (03) District Educat onal Officer, Mahabubabad is here by Appointed Mandal Ecucationil Officer, Kesamudram t:; Enquiry Authority to Enquiry in to the(.harges of framed ilg,tinsi. the said Sri. D.Nagaraj Kumar SC,T (HEAD MASTER), I'4Pt,S; Cheruvumundu Thanda Mdl: Kesanrudr.am, Dist: Mahabubabad under rule 20 of the AP Civil Ser.yice:; (C,:A Rules- 1991) Rule:; 1?'91. Hence I cond tr:ted the detailed Enquiry aboul. Sr,. D, Nagaraj Kumar, SG-- rilliAD MASTER), MPPS Cheruvumundu Th,rnda Mdl: Kesamud"arn, t)ist: Mahabubabad as follows. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Name of the Employee Sri D.Nagaraj Kumar D(lsi(l r'ration Pl,: ce r rf working Secondary (; racle r I eacher (HEAD MASTER) MPPS Thanda Cht:ruv u m undu Date of acq u ired incident Sept-1012, Octo-2C,12,Nov- 2012 Arno rnt of withdrawal Rs:4,30,000/-(Four Thirty Thousands.) Lacks Date of Absent from the cuty

12.06.2013 Above :;taterrent are given by Sri D.Nagaraju kur.rtrr, SGT (HEAD MASIEltr, MPPS Cheruvumundu Thanda on the presence of Enquiry Orficer on 12.07.2079 at MPPS Cl-eruyumundu Thanda. Hence I arn s;L bmitting the said detailed report to take further action. v -. 7 SN, J D. Article of Charqe framed aoainst the oetitioner ts extracted hereu der: - Sri D.Nagaraj Kumar, PS HM, MPPS Cheruvumundu thanda, Kesamudram mandal, Mahabubabad district has misappropriated the RVM (SSA) funds worth of Rs.4.30 lakhs which are sanctioned for construction of additional classrooms that leads to neqligence and dereliction in discharging of his legitimate duties for which he has contemplated in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 20 of the Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991. AOC-II: The whereabouts of the individual are not known From 12.06.2013. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIO N:-

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner impugned proceedings submits Rc.No.1924l A3/2O1}-2O, dated 06.07.2020 of the 3'd respondent herein rejecting the petitioner's request for payment of subsistence allowance for the period from 03.08.2013 to 15.04.2019 is illegal for the following rea sons: - i) The order impugned passed by the 3'd respondent in clear violation of principles of natural justice without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. ) t 8 SN.,I ii) It is incorrerct to state that the petitioner dicl not submit non employnrr=nt certificate every month to the DDO for claiming petitioner's subsistence atlowance as Jr€rr FR- s3(ii). iii) It is false llo state that the petitioner absconcled from duty w.e.f. 1.21.06.2023 since the Enquiry Officer Report Proceedings Rc.No.62lMRC/KSDM/2019, dated L2.O7.zOLg acldressed to the D.E.O. & Ex-Officio Project Officer, Mah;tbubabad District admittedly as borne on record does n,ot give any finding in so far as petitioner's absconding l'rom duty since 12,O5.2023, althotrglh, the specific charge had been framed against the pr=l;i[i6ns1 and the statement of Article of charge II- framed against the petitioner' 'which specifically reads as under:- 'AOC"II whereabouts of the individual are not known f rrom 12.06.2Ot3". Based (,n aforesaid submissi ons o h I ea rned cou n sel rinq on behalf the Detitioner, t:he Writ Peti 1()n Eas- to be allowed as praved for bv the p itioner in the oresell Writ Petition, since there is no basi.s to the 9 3td re t ue th s id rm n d SN, J n R .No .19 24/A3/2 o19-20, date d o6.O7 .20 resDo dentco tra 3'd to the fno utrv Officers Reoort and its 20 e own reco rd.

6. Learned Assistant Government pleader for for services-r appearing on beharf of the respondents on the other hand contends that there is no iltegality in the order passed by the 3.d respondent, dated ci6.O7.2O20 and placed retiance on the averments made at para No.6 of the counter affidavit in support of the case of the 3d respondent in view of the fact that the petitioner himself admitted before the Appeltate Authority that petitioner had misused the funds sanctioned for the construction of the additional class rooms due to which the petitioner was suspended vide proceedings, dated O3.0g.2O13 and therefore, the petitioner is not entifled for any retief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ petition.

7. This Court takes note of the fact that the petitioner had not been provided with an opportunity of personal hearing prior to passing the impugned proceedings, dated l0 SN. J

06.07 -2O2.O passed by the 3'd respondent lretrein in rejecting lhe petitioner's request for subsistence allowance for the period from O3.O8.2023 to 15'04.2019'

8. This Court also takes into consideration ttr€r fact as borne on re:cord that the Enquiry Officer's report, dated L2.O7.zOLg does not give any specific finding in s;o far as the Article of Charge (ii) framed against the pr:titioner that is whet'elabouts of the individual are not kno'wn from L2.O6.2OL3 and therefore, the rejection of the pr:titioner's request for payment of subsistence allowance on the ground tha t the whereabouts of the petitio ner from L2.O6.2O1'3 are not known and that the petitiorrer had been absconrding from duties w.e.f. 12.06.2O23 is totally unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal.

9. Ta-kins-l nto consideration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of thr3 case. The submissions made by the learne<l counsel b) appearing o,n behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Gorrernment Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of thr: respondents. - SN, J c) The contents of the impugned proceedings Rc.No.1924lA3/2OL9-2O, dated O6.Ot.2O2O passed by the 3'd respondent (referred to and extracted above) d) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in particular relevant para No.6 (referred to and extracted above) d) Article of Charge framed against the petitioner (referred to and extracted above) e) The contents of the Enquiry Officer Report Proceedings Rc.No.62lMRC/KSDM/2019, dated 12.O7.2OL9 of the Mandal Educationat Officer & Inquiry Officer, Kesamudram, Mahabubabad District addressed to the D.E.O. & Ex-Officio project Officer, Mahabubabad District (referred to and extracted above) which clearly indicates no finding recorded against the petitioner in so far as the petitioner having absconded from duty w.e.f. 12.06.2013 and that the petitioner had been willfully and unauthorisedly absent This Court oDines that the olea of the 3'd reso ondent that the Davment of su bsistence llowances after final ization d isci plina rv roceed i nos Le t2 s\t \ settl eme-nJ- of susDension period is not feasible and the ot be denied as Der petition er's law, the order impuqned, entitlemen! Rc.No. f 9_?t / A3/20 L9-2O, dated O6.O7. 2O2O of the 3'd respondClll is set-aside and the matter is remiLt ed to the DEO, Mahabubabad District i.e., 3'd resoondent llprein who is directed to annsider the reo uest of the etitioner for release o!- s u bsistence allowance for o3.o8.LO_LL to 15.04.2019 in accordance the pt:riod from o law tn conformity rryith orinci ples of natu I iustice bv p v tnq nitv of oe onal hearino to the ner dulv an optro takino _intq consideration the enouirv repr>r,t, dated L2.O7.2_O!9t_ of the Mandal Education a I Officer Officer,_Kgtrmudram, Mahabub the D"E.9._ & Ex-Officio Proiect Officer, M District an{ ass a eo ers on h ad essed to bubabad Inoui rv r r st of the lease of the s ru lrsistence pertainino to oetitio0-er - allowa nce to the Deti ioner for the oeriod from 03.o8.2013 to 15.04.2( 9 within a period of four (O4) we,eks from the date _of receipt of coov of the order arnd dulv I3 SN, J communicate the decision on the sub ect issue to the Detitioner.

10. Accordingly, the Writ petition is altowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMY S STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Director of School Education, Lakdi-ka-Pul, H erabad, State of Telangana. The Regional Joint Director, Department of School Education, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, TS The District Educational Officer, Mahabubabad, f\rlahabubabad Revenue Dist, TS. One CC to SRI S.AJAY KUIVAR, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies s To

2. , 4 t b PSK. GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1510412025 ORDER WP.No.19868 of 2020 I]C TODAY 6<?"r :J T4 o (J a .a i i ltill 2025 a ,: ! \..1: ...-... -_:_: .-i.. :: -;-, 7 . ..-5? ALLOWING ThIE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (ilq* w"