The Judoment of the Aoex Court in P.V.M ahadevan v. MD, T.N.Housino Board. dated O

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Asst. Excise Superintendents without reference to the proceedings pending in TEC No.71512013 on the file of Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings, Telangana State, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : GP FOR PROHIBITION EXCISE Counsel for the ResPondents No.3 : The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.2429O OF 2022 ORD E R: Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Iearned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise. 2 The oetitioner aDDro ached the Court seekino 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.715/2013 and further declare that charge framed by the TDP dt. 26-2-2018 suffer from inordinate delay and therefore violative of article t4, 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.71512013 is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. c) and pass".

3. It is speciflc case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Excise Sub Inspector on 22.11.2007 and promoted as prohibition & excise inspector on 30.08.2011. During his tenure as sub inspector he worked in Nalgonda district from 2 SN. J

01.07.2010 to 29.08.2011. ACB had conducted a search at the office of Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Nalgonda on

06.03.2012 and seized the files relating tb auction of wine shops and alleged that there were some irregularities in the auction because of r.rhich a group of persons gained the control over more than 51o/o of wine shops by colluding with excise officials' Therefore ACB addressed a letter to the government to take disciplinary a(:tion against the excise officials in which petitioner is also included. Then the Tribunal of Disciplinary proceedings had framed a charge against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had colluded with others and allowed 44 wine shops to run before and beyond the prescribed timings by taking illegal gratification. It is further the case of the petitioner that the ACB had found ncr incriminating material or evidence against the petitioner, but however curiously ACB initiated and recommended the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and charge, dated 26.02.2018 had been issued to the petitioner by the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings, Telangana State, Hyderabad ancl the same had been pending as on date. It is furtl-rer the case of the petitioner that due to pendency of disciplinary proceedings he is being deprived of many benefits. - J SN, J Aggrieved by the action oF the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RE CORD.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in respect of TEC No.7LS/zOLg 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.7L5/2OL3 had been pending as on date without any prog ress.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that in view of the pendency of the Tribunal Enquiry Case No.715 /2013 registered against the petitioner in the year 2013, the petitioner cannot be denied his legitimate rights for promotion as Assastant Excise Superintendent and the delay in conctuding the proceedings initiated against the petitioner vide charge, dated 26.O2.?OLA is unexplained and therefore, the charge itself needs to be quashed, and the petitioner's 4 S\ I case should be considered for promotion as Assistant Excise Superintendent .

6. In support of petitioner's case, learned courisel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated L9.O7.2O2L passed in W.P.No.87O of 2O2L which refer to Charge Memos in TEC 1-t6/2OL3, L36/2Ot3 and L72/2OL3 pertaining to the same incident in different ptaces of work related to the year 2OL2 (iiquor syndicate cases) in respect of the petitioner's there under in W.p.No.87O of 2O2L and contends that the petitaoner is entifled for the similar relief as extended to the said petationer in W.P.No.87O ot 2O2L vide order, dated 19.07.2O2L.

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 (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and if the proceedings are not concluded for 5 SN. J any reason within the said period of six (06) months by the respondents, the respondents may be directed to drop the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petition er.

8. The Judoment of the Aoex Court in P.V.M ahadevan Vs. MD, T.N.Housino Board. dated O8.O8.20O5 reoorted in 200 c 636 a t raN &11 is observed as under:-

6. Mr. Prabhakar also invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of his case. It is stated in para L4 of the affidavit that the respondent with the mala fide i tention iss ed the Dre ent charqe memo the aDDe lant even t ouqh the lleqed i ncident of issuance of s le deed was of the vear 199d. which was O vear orior to the issua nce of 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.

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 orotracted .l rsct ent em lo tt ar ul therefore-bea s hould- nlv ln o ntere ct s nft ha trr.lrra ment em rIt hrrt in nubli interest and also in the interests of insoirino confidence in the minds of the qovern ment emol ovees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the r aarrar. n voided not a atn cf lin I t 6 SN. J curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplrnary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the departr.lent in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.

9. The Aoex Court in a caten a of its iudq ments enlisted below held that the Courts have a dutv to quash the oroceedinqs 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 2OO6 (5) SCC page 88. iii) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Chamnlal Goya! reported in 1995 (2) SCC 57O. iv) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasul Chowdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC Page 3O5. v) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 2O12 (11) SCC 56s.

10. he Division Bench of this ourt in its i udqment dated 26.O4.2OL3 Dassed in W.P.No.282 of 2O13 a nd the - 7 SN, J Division Bench of Lhis Co rt in its iudqment. dated

25.06.2013 ssed in W.P. Nos.11 924, LO307, to441 and 10488 of 2OL, ref€rrinq to dela in initiatin r edin s re udi to the s a so a qroun for ouashi nq the charqe i elf.

11. Takino into considerat ion the fact as borne on record that the Cha rqe Mem o, dated 2 6.O2.2 018 had been is ued the Detitioner rn resDect of TEC No.715l 20L3 aqainst reqistered aqainst the oetation er in the vear 2013 and the fact that there isnoo roqress in the said Tribunal Enouirv Case No.715/2013, even as on datetn the ear 2025. this Court opines that since the a lleqations level ed aqain r in the vear 2O13 had not been Droved as on 25 as we !1, and therersnoconclusion date in the vear arrtvedat holdinq the oetation er as quiltv of the alleqed Detiti incidents that took place in the vear 201 3, without nalatv havi q reached on the subiect rssue even in the vear 2025, the oetition er cannot beDuttoa v further aoon v and sufferino at this lenoth of time. I 8 t SN. J L2. Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 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) Th u ments of the Various Court o i) The observations in the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated W.P.No.87O of 2021 vide order, dated 19.07.2O2L. ii) The judgment of the Apex Court in P.V.Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N.Housing Board, dated O8.O8.20O5 reported in (2OO5) 5 SCC 635(referred to and extracted above) iii) The judgment of Division Bench of this court, dated 26.04.2O13 passed in W.P.No.2826 of 2013. iv) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 25.O6.2O13 passed in W.P.Nos.1L294t tO3O7, LO44l & 10488 of 2O13. v) The Court of A.P. Vs. A.Rajdeswar Reddy reported in 2O1O(3) ALD Page 5O1 (DB) 9 SN. J va) M.V.B.Jilani Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2006 (5) SCC page 88. vii) State of Punjab and Others Vs.' Chamnlal Goyal reported in 1995 (2) SCC 57O. viii) Secretary Forest Department Vs. Abdur Rasut Chowdury reported in 2OO9 (7) SCC page 3O5. ix) Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabash Chandra Mirdha reported in 201-2 (11) SCC

555. The Wri Petition is allowed as oraved for and the Charoe dated 26.O2 018 framed bv the TDP aoa inst the itioner in ct of TEC N 7 013 is a ouashed. However, there sh all be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed SD/-K. SREE RAMA M RTHY TRAR DEPUTY S To, 1 The PrinciPal Secretary' Telangana, HYderabad. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ Revenue (Excise-l) Department, Secretariat' State of

2. Thecommissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Telangana State, Nampally' Hyderabad.

3. The Registrar, Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings' Telangana State' Hyderabad.

4. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MADIRAJU' Advocate' [OPUC] 5.TwoCCstoGPFoRPRoHlBlTloNEXCISE,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana. [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies. *r ". -'$ir'*;t*- ..:ir:. ... , CC TODAY B1 E () 6rA Q/_ q l \ 1 HPAI 2[25 z \ .a' * Ot -. -* --- ----i- HIGH COURT DATED:2110312025 ORDER WP.No.24290 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS