High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise. 2, The petitioner aDDroached the Court seekinq Draver ,, as under: "...to issue a writ order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that a) petitioner cannot be proceeded in TEC No.7l4/20L3 and further declare that charge framed by the IDP dt. 26-2-20L8 suffer from inordinate delay and therefore violative of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and the same is liable to be set aside. b) and further declare that continuing TEC No.714l2013 is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. c) and pass".

3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Excise Inspector on dated 27.12.1997 and promoted as Asst. Excise superintendent. He worked as SHO in Bhongir of Nalgonda district from 01.07.2010 to 31.08.2011. f. 2 SN. J ACB has conducted a search at the office of prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Nalgonda on dated 06.03.2012- and seized the files relatinq to auction of wine shops and alleged that there were some irregularities in the auction becairse of which a group of persons qained the control over more than 51% of wine shops by colluding with the Excise officials. Therefore ACB addressed a letter to the government to take disciplinary action against the excise cffic ,:ls in which petitioner is also in:luded. Then the Tribunal of Disciplinary proceedings has framed a charge against the petition€ r whereby alleging that the petitioner has colluded with others ;rnd allowed 44 wine shops to run before and beyond the prescrib,-.d the timings by taking illegal gratification. The petitioner sLrbmits that the ACB has found no incriminating material or r:vidence against the petitioner as such disciplinary proceedings ,;re also pending tiil date and also ACB has no basis to recommr:nd the disciplinary proceedinqs against the petitioner. It is furthr:r the case oF the petitioner that due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings he is being deprived of many benefits. Aggrieved by the action oF the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. I I I I i , I , g. t I t 3 SN. J PERUSED THE RECORD.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in respect of TEC No.7L4/2OL3 registered against the petitioner herein in the year 2O13, a charge had been framed by the TDP, dated 26.O2.2OLA against the petitioner and the Tribunal Enquiry case .,No.7t4/2O13 had been pending as on date without any p rog ress.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that in view of the pendency of the Tribunal Enquiry Case No.714/2013 regastered against the petitioner in the year 2013, the petitioner cannot be denied his legitimate rights for promotion as Excise Superintendent and the delay in concluding the proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge, dated 26.02.2(J1A is unexplained and therefore, the charge itself needs to be quashed, and the petitioner's case should be considered for promotion as Excise Superintendent . 4 SN. J

6. In support of petitioner's case, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated L9.O7.2O2t passed in W.P.No.87O ol 2O2L which refer to Charge Memos in TEC LL5/2OL3, L36/2013 and 172/2013 pertaining to the same incident in different ptaces of work related to the year 2OL2 (liquor syndicate cases) in respect of the petitioner's there under in W.P.No.87O of 2O2L and contends that the petitioner is entitled for the similar relief as extended to the said petitioner in W.P.No.87O of 2}2Lvide order, dated 19.O7.2C.21.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand contends that the respondents may be directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner within a period of six (O6) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and if the proceedings are not concluded for any reason within the said period of six (06) months by the respondents, the respondents may be directed to drop i I i I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I 5 SN, J the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. t he .lud me n of the AneY cou rt in P.V.Mahadev

8.7 Vs. MD, T.N.Housin q Board. dated O8.O8.20O5 reoorted in (2005) 6 SCC 636 and in oa lc ular at Dara Nos 6&11,it is observe as under:-

6. Mr. Prabhakar also invited our attentlon to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his case. It is stated in parc 14 of the affidavit that the respondent with the mala fide intention issued the oresent charqe memo aoainst the aooellant even thouoh the alleoed le deed was of the vear incident of issuance of whi h was 1O r charqe memo and that very reason for issuing charge memo was that the appellant could be detained from promoting to the post of Chief Engineer of the Housing Boa rd. rior t rssuanc

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 will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The Drotracted disciolin rv enouirv aoain t a oovernment molovee th erefore, be avoided not onlv in the should, intere ts of the qo ernment em lovee but in oublic interest and also in the interests of in sDi rr no the mi ds of the n emploYees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted nfidence 6 SN, J disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punisnment. For the mistakes committed by the depa rtment in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary procoedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer. The A x Court in a cate a of ats ud n s enlisted below held that the Courts have a dutv to quash the ptoceedinqs due to delav, i) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajdeswar Reddy reported in 2O1O(3) ALD Page sO1 (DB) ii) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2O06 (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 305. v) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2OL2 (11) SCC s65.

10. The Di r Bench of this Court i q![rent dated 26.O4.2OL3 oassed in W.P.No.28 26 of 2OL3 and the Division Bench of this Court in its iudqment, dated

25.O6.2O13 oassed i n W.P.Nos .LL924, AO3O7, 1O441 and 1 SN, J referri n o 10488 of 20 1 in initiatinq or con cl dinq eno I rv Droceedinos observed that delav causes Dreiudice to the delin a7 uent. as such the same is tr| delav also a oround for ouashino he cha roe itself . t

11. T kinq into considerat ton the fact as borne on record h the Ch r ed2 .o2.201 been is aqainst the peti tioner in resDect of TEC No.714 reo lstered aoainst the oetitioner in the vear 2O 13 and the fact that there is no roo ress in the said Tribunal Enouirv 13 2 Cas e No. 7L4l2O 13 even as on date in the vear 2025, this Court o n ln ac fh at sincc tha rllarr at a ainst h petitioner in the vear 20L3 had not bee n Droved as on v f date in the vear 2O25 as well, an d there is no concl usion a rrived at holdino the D etitioner as o uiltv of the alleqed incidents that took olace in the vear 2O13, without finalitv h avlno reach ed on he subiect lssue even rn the vear 20 25 the oetitioner cannot be out to anv furthe r mental t aqonv an d sufferino at this lenqth of tim e. L2. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 8 SN. J b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The iudom ents of the Van us Courts enlisted below:- i) The observations in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated W.P.No.870 of 2021 vide order, dated 19.O7.2O2L. ii) The judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, dated

08.08.2OO5 reported in 1ZOOS) 6 SCC 636(referred to and extracted above) iii) The judgment of Division Bench of this court, dated 26.O4.2O13 passed in W.P.No.2826 of 2013. iv) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.06.2O13 passed in W.P.Nos.L7-294t LO3O7, LO44L & 10488 of 2O13. v) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajdeswar Reddy reported in 2O1O(3) ALD Page 501 (DB) vi) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2OO6 (5) SCC page 88. l ; I I I I I i 9 SN- J vai) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 57O. viii) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2009 (7) SCC page 3O5. ix) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2Or.2 (11) SCC

565. The Writ Petition is allowed as oraved for and the Charoe. dated 26.02.20 18 fr med bv the TDP aqainst the etition r res e t t EC o.7L4 2 1 ouashed. However there shall be no rdeo r as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.A. ASSI SRINIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, Hvderabad. T.S..Hvderabad-

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Excise-l) Department' Secretariat' 2. The C6mmissioner of Prohibition and Excise' Telangana State' Nampally' 3 ?#iff.iiar, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings' Telangana State' a ohe CC to SRl. SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU' Advocate IOPUCI 5 rwo CCs to Gp ron p'66frriinioN'iiCisi' H'gh Couri for the State of " 6. Two CD CoPies fefangina at HYderabad [OUT] Hvderabad. BM BS \ CC TODAY s c ST4 19 APH 2025 t) t-1 )'11 t L J C-) r) \ ). .'t \.* HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 ORDER WP.No.24282 of 2022 I I I I I i I I l I I I t ; I I I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS