The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri M.Srikanth, learned counsel appearing on behalf Sri Mhd.Abdu! Mateen Qureshi, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy petitioner Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents on record.

2. The petitioner aDDroached the Court seekinq with modified Draver as under: "......to lssue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the charge sheet No.NIEPIFD/E$TT.6(3031)2O18-19/524 dated 03/09-08-2018 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and consequently set aside the same and to pass..."

3. It is specific case of the petitianer that the petitioner was appointed as a junior teacher in the NIEPID (National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities) vide proceedings dated O2-O7-7992. On 22.04.1994, the

petitioner's colleague Mr. Mahaveer Singh tried to outrage the modesty of the petitioner, thus, the petitioner lodged a complaint :;i;n-;i, z SN, J with police. The said accused was convicted for :; years and a departmental enquiry was conducted against the accused. The petitioner was pressurized to withdraw her complaint and was harassed for not obliging to the same. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was terminated from service vide order dated 25.04.1997, without notice and subsequently all the statutory benefits along with allowances were also withheld. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 9706 of 1997 and the sanre was allowed vide order dated 26.02.2002 directing the r,:spondents to reconsider the petitioner's termination. Later, the petitioner was reinstated into a fresh post of fitter cum mechanist at Delhi vide letter dated 03.04.2002 instead of reinstating the petitioner as Junior Teacher in the 1't respondent organization with all consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a W.P. No. 21025 of 2002 and the same w,ls allowed vide order dated 21.08.2018 setting aside the letter dated

03.04.2002 directing the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner for the post as Junior Teacher in the: 1st respondent organization 3 SN, J It is further the case oF the petitioner that the petitioner was continuously victimized at the workplace from the time she refused to compromise in the sexuar harassment matter. on 16.05.2018, the petitioner was placed under suspension without assigning any reason, which was initiated at the instance of Mr. B.V Ram Kumar, Deputy Director(Admin). The petitioner filed FIR No.319/2012 against Sri. B.V. Ram Kumar and FIR No. L32/2OLB dated 24.04.2018 against Dr. Himanshu Das, the then Director In charge, and three others. SubsequenUy, on 03/09_ 08-2018, the petitioner was issued a photocopy of impugned charge sheet without an ink signature and with vague allegations. In response to the sAid suspension order the petitioner filed a representation dated 19.08.201g and the same was not considered Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.p. No. 42941 of 2018 challenging the said suspension and the same was disposed of vide order dated t2.t2.2}lg, directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner,s representation. Thereafter, a properly signed charge sheet was issued on r-. :1, 4 SN. ]

14.08.2019 and during the entire period fronr the day the petitioner was initially terminated, the petitioner's subsistence allowance was not enhanced beyond 75o/o. Agyieved by the charge sheet, dated 03/09-OB-2018, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. PERUSED HE RECORD:- A. ch aroe memo No.NIEPI D /Estt.6(3 031) /2018-19 t524. s oo nde nt o the issued bv the 3'd dated 03.08.201 Detiti ner is extra cted hereun der:- The undersigned proposes to hold an enquiry against Smt. M. Nagalakshmi, Junior Special Edr-cation Teacher under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule 1965. The sLrbstance of the imputations oF misconduct or misbehavio'lr in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held s set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charge iAnnexure 1). A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-Il). A list of documen-s by which, and a list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are (Annexure-III proposed to be sustained are u,to and IV). "n6;osr:d

2. Smt.M.Nagalakshmi, Junior Special Education Teacher is directed to submit within 10 days of th3 receipt of this Memorandum a written statement of her Cefence and also to state whether she desires to be heard irr person.

3. She is informed that an inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charge as are rot admitted. She 't,,r 5 SN, J should, therefore, specifically admit or deny each article of charge.

4. Smt.M.Nagalakshmi, Junior Special Education Teacher is further informed that if she does not submit her written statement of defence on or before the date specified in para 2 above, or does not appear in person before the inquiring authority or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of Rule 16 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, or the orders/d irectio ns issued in pursuance of the said rule, the inquiring authprity may hold the inquiry against her ex-parte.

5. Attention ot Smt.M.Nagalakshmi, Junior Special Education Teacher is invited to Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, L964, under which no Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further her interest in respect of matters pertaining to her service under the Government. If any representation is received on her behalf from another person in respect of any matter dealt with in these proceedings, it will be presumed that Smt.M.Nagalakshmi is aware of such a representation and that it has been made at her instance and action will be taken against her for violation of Rule 20 of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.

6. The receipt of the Memorandum may be acknowledge. B Petitio er's reoresentation, date

19.O8.2019 addressed to the 3'd resoond ent for withdrawal of charoe Ued under Rule-14 ccs (cca'l ules. 1965 is extracted hereunder:- I humbly submit the following few lines to your kind notice for favour of consideration and for taking necessary action in accordance with the Rules. 6 SN, ] I am very much thankful to your kind self after making protracted correspondence from 17-08-il01B to 05-07- 2019 you were kind enough finally to (lause supply of Memo No.NIEPID/Estt.6(3031)/2018-19/524 daled 3/09- OB-2018 and with copies of listed docurrrents vide reference 2nd cited. On perusal of the previous supplied Xerox copy of the charge memo and 'the present charge memo supplied today, i.e., on 19-08-2011 by Speed Post under No. EN4430772771N the followingl irregularities / differences come to my notice and I am in:lined to bring to you kind notice for taking necessary action. i) The charge mem6 lxerox copy) supplied on 10-08-2018 by Regd.Post on does not contain the signatures of Dr.Himangshu Das on Pages 4 & 5 of imputations misconduct and misbehavior and whereas the present charge sheet contains the signatures of Dr.Himangshu Das on all pages of Annexure-l to Annexurer-lV. This clearly establishes that the signatures of Dr.HirnangshuDas, the then Director 1/c. were obtained subs':quently only to cover up their mistakes. ii) Dr.Himangshu Das, the then Direct-or I/c., NIEPID, Secunderabad is not my disciplinary authority and he is not vested with the statutory powers to issue a cha rge sheet to me. (iii) On perusal of the Committee Report lated 07-05-2018 (listed document at Sl.No.xxv supplied to me, it clearly appears that 18 members have participated in the meeting held and Dr.Himangshu Das and Sri B.\i.Ramkumar have attended the meeting held on 07-05-2018 at Sl' No.1 and 2 in the capacity of Director I/c. and Dt)A and they have also signed in the record of attendance ;t Sl.No.18 and 17 respectively. Thus, Dr. Himangshu Das has become a party to prima facie decision and he cannot issue a charge sheet to me even if powers are delegated to him. Thus, the charge sheet issued to me is nonest. (iv) Dr. Niveditha Patnaik, Lecturer in Special Education, NIEPID was appointed as Inquiry Authority vide Memo No.NIEPID/Estt.6(3031)/20t8-L91592/763 dated 09-11- 7 SN, J 2018 and Sri B.V.Ramkumar, Deputy Director (Admin) was appointed as Presenting Officer vide Memo No NIEPID/Estt. 6(303 1 )/20 1 B- t9 / 59 t / 7 64 dated 09- 1 1 -20 18. Subsequently the appointed I.0. was relieved on her request and one Dr.G.Sri Krishna, Lecturer in Rehabitation psychology, NIEPID has been appointed as I.O. vide NTEPTD/Esrt.6(3031)/2018- 19/ 1 183 dared 06_02_2019. Surprisingly the appointed LO. Dr. G. Sri Krishna was relieved on his request and one Dr.Arun Banik, Reader& Head (Speech & Hearing), Mumbai was appointed as 1.0. vide NIEPID/Estt.6(3031)/2OL9-20/2t9 dated 03-06-2019. The appointment of Sri B.V.Ramkumar as presenting Officer has been continued. (v) I had lodged a complaint at SHO, Bowenpalli under SC,ST Atrocities Act on 24-04-2018 and an FIR was registered under No.132 of 2018 in which Sri B.V.Ramkumar and Smt.B.Jyothi, and Smt. Noorjahan were mentioned as 41, A2 and 43 and the then Director I/c. was mentioned as one of the Accused in others. Naturally, the then Director l/c. Dr. Himangshu Das and Sri B.V.Ramkumar, Deputy Director (Admin) developed vengeance against me and resorted tb take action against me by issuing the charge sheet on 09-08-2018. (vi) Sri B.V.Ramkumar, Dy Director (Admn) and presenting Officer if continued as P.O. there is every possibility of tampering the evidence and influencing the witnesses as all the official witnesses are sub-ordinates to him and the fair justice cannot be expected. Therefore, I request your good self to withdraw the charge sheet which was issued by incompetent authority who attended the Committee Meeting on 07-05-2018 and who was figured as one of the Accused in FIR registered at Bowenpalli for which act of kindness I shall be thankful to you, Madam. t! -:. ii" 8 SN. J c.o ffice order. dat d 04.05. 2()t7 tssued bv the Deoutv India is extracted Secretarv to the Government of h reu er: - Consequent upon acceptance lf request of Dr.S.P.Das Director, SVNIRTAR to relieve him from the additional duties of Director, National nstitute for the Empowerment of Persons with Intelle':tual Disabilities (NIEPID), Secunderabad, Dr.Himangshu Das, Director, NIEPMD, Chennai will look after the charge of Director, NIEPID in addition to his own duties with immediate effect until further orders.

2. This issues with the approval of competent authority. office order,dated 22.0 1.2019 i ssued b D Sec arv to the Gov nmentofln x racte the Under hereunder:- In continuation of this Ministry's order of even number dated 18.12.2018 and 8.1.2019 and consequent upon Smt' Anuradha Dalmia, Director (Offg.), N TEPID proceeding upon medical leave w.e.f. 5.1.2019 to 19 1'2019' Dr. Himanshu Das, Director. NIEPMD vvill look after the charge of Director, NIEPID in additio-t to his existing charge, during the aforementioned leave period.

2. Dr. Himangshu Das, Director, NIEPMID will have all the statutory powers of regular Director, NEIPID during the prolonged absence of Smt. Anuradha Mohit, Director, NIEPID so that recruitment and other administrative issues of Institute are not held uP.

3. Dr. Himangshu Das, Director, NIEPIVID will also act as Ad-hoc Disciplinary Authority in respect of the J 9 SN, J officials/officers of the Institute for the time period for which Smt. Anuradha Mohit is on leave. i

2. This issues with the approval of competent authority DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner obtai4ed voluntary retirement 'l w.e.f. 13.O1.2024, but however, the petitioner is being troubled and victimized by the respondents even after retirement. It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner

6. No.NIEPID/Estt.6(3031)/2OLA-L9/524 on 03.08.2018 supplied with charge which was issued by one Dr, Himanshu Das, the then Director, in-charge, NIEPID, Secunderabad, who is not the disciplinary Authority and ls not vested with the statutory powers to issue a charge sheet to the petitioner. 7 It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner vide detailed representation, dated 19.08.2019 /- l0 SN. J addressed to the 3'd respondent requested for withdrawal of charge sheet issued under Rule-14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by the then Director I/C NIEPID, Secrtnderabad, but however the same had not been considered as on date and further, notices had been issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitaoner to appear before the Authority concerned for the purpose of enquiry in respect of charge memo, dated 03.O8.2018 issued to the petitioner' 8 Learned counsel a peafln on behalf of the Deti further olaces reliance on the Centra I Civil ervices Control s Government of India decisions, which, And Appeal Rules is extracted h ereu nd er: - (2) Officers performing current duties of a post iannot exercise statutory powers under the rules'- The Law Ministry has advised that an of.'icer appointed to perform the current duties of an appointrnent can exercise administrative or financial powers vested in the full- fledged incumbent of the post, but he, cannot exercise statutory powers, whether those powers are derived direct from an Act of Parliament (i.e., Income fax Act) or Rules, Regulations and By-Laws made under rrarious Articles of the Constitution (e.., Fundamental rules, Classification, Control and Appeal rules, Civil Service Regulations, Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, etc ) SN, J

9. Learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner further Contends that there has been no delegation of powers to Mr. Himanshu Das, the then Director, NIEPID who had issued proceedings initaating enquiry against the petitioner, and the same is absolutely without jurisdiction and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner should be withdrawn, since there cannot be any continuation of disciplinary proceedings after the employee,s retirement as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Anant R Kulkarni vs. Y.P.Education society and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.3935 of 2013, dated 26.04.2O13.

10. The iudoment of the Aoex ou rt ln An ntR Kulkar nt vs. Y.P,Edu tion societv a d Ors. in Civil Aooeal 35 of o1 ated 2 13 an a rticul r Nos. 14 to 18 are extracted here nder: -

14. In State of Puniab v. Khemi Ram, AIR 1970 SC 214, this court observed: "There can be no doubt that if disciplinary action is sought to be taken against a government servant it must be done before he retires as provided by the said rule. If a disciplinary enquiry cannot be concluded beFore the date of such retirement, the course open to the Government is to l- SN. J pass an order oF suspension and refuse to permit the concerned public servant to retire and reta n him in service till such enquiry is completed and a final order is passed therein." rs., eofB ihar 15 . In Kirti Bhusan Sinqh v AIR 1986 SC 2116, this Court held a's under: ".... We are of the view that in the ab:;ence of such a provision which entitled the State Government to revoke an order of retirement....... which had become effective and final, the order passed by the State Government revoking the order of retirement should be held as having been passed without the authority of law and is. liable to be set aside. It, therefore, follows that the order of dismissal passed thereafter was also a nullity."

16. In Bha q irathi Jena v. Boa & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1841, this Court o bse rved: of Directors o.s. .c. retire ell nt ha enquiry after retirement of th provision stating that in case m deduction could be made from a therewasn o authori tv ve There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary e appellcrnt and nor anY isconduct is established, a retiral be nefits. Onc rvic on3 o-6-1 95. d tn he Cor oration for theao el!ant. In the absence of benefi ts Davabl e td th had la osed and the aooellant was entitled to full retiral benefits onretirement." the e art ntinu n r os n ulr the n ul D orDora ion Ltd. & Ors, v. t7 . In U.P. State Suoar Kamal Swa ooo Ton don, (2008) 2 S3C 41, this Court r dealt with a case wherein statutory corporation had initiated proceedings for recovery of the financial loss from an employee after his retirement from :;ervice' This Court approved such a course observing that in the case of retirement, master and servant relatio lship continue for grant of retrial benefits. The proceedings for recovery of f]nancial loss from an employee is perrnissible even after l3 SN, J his retirement and the same pan also be recovered from the retrial benefits of the said employee. 18. Thus. it is evident from the above, that the relevant rules qoverninq th€ service conditions of an emplovee are the determininq factors as to whether :nd a It b held aqainst an employee who stood retire<l alter reerchinq the aqe of surerannuation. qenelallv, if the enquiry has been initiated while the delinquent emplovee was in service, it would continue even after his retirement, but nature of Dunashment would chanqe. The ounishment of dismissal/removal from service would not be imposed- a er the domestac attar I lr r

11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submit that the procqedings initiated against the petitioner after petitioner's retirement should be necessarily dropped on two grounds:- i) on the ground that the proceedings issue are without jurisdiction ii) on the ground that it is a cotorable exercise of power because, petitioner is being victimized continuously since the year 1994. Learned counse! appearing on behalf of the L2. respondents on the other hand submits that vide proceedings, dated 22.OL.2O19 of the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Dr. Himanshu Das, Director, t4 SN, J NIEPD(MD) was entrusted with statutory powers as well and in view of the fact that he was posted in-charge of Director, NIEPD w.e.f .O4.O[.2OL7 and he had the responsibility to discharge additional duties of Director, National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities (NIEPID), Secunderabad, hence he is competent to issue the charge memo, dated

03.08.2018. Learned counsel appearing orr behalf of the petitioner, however submits that there has been no approval of the executive counsel as mandated under rules and therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further places reliance on the office memorandum of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, dated 27.08.2015 issued to Dr. Himanshu Das, Executive Director, Socaety of Advance Study in Rehabilitation (SASR), India and referring to in particular clause (n) & (o) thereunder, contended that there had been no specific delegation of powers to Dr. Himanshu Das as specifically stipulated under Clause (o) of the said office memorandum dated 27.08.2O15 and therefore, Dr. t5 SN, J Himanshu Das cannot proceed with any enquiry against the petitioner. L4. L d el a n e I e ceedin s h w wath n the comDetence of the re s oondent authoritv . The itioner i cerned titioner a a u ate in e n offic r leas includinq o! of iurisdiction a ooroach Cou rt bv filinq the Dresent Writ P ition and therefore the Writ Petition could b ano the 2nd resDondent to consider the oriev nce of the Detition er as out-forth vi e oetitio ner's disoosed of dir reDresen taon,

19. 08.2019. b fore the 2nd resoo dent herein and the 2nd h within a reasonable oeriod.

15. n r I h s u e n f5 i l:. ^' q l6 SN. J lea rned co nsel DDeann oon b half of resoondents.

16. Takino into con side ra tio n: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' b) appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the resPondents. d) The office memorandum, dated 27.08.2015 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government Of India in particular clause (n) & (o) (e) The Central Civil Services Control And Appeal Rules pertaaning to Government of India decisions (referred to and extracted above) f) The contents of the petitioner's representation, dated 19.08.2019 requesting the 3'd respondent to withdraw the charge sheet which was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to attend the committee meeting on

07.05.2018 (referred to and extracted above) t? SN, J (S) Office order, dated O4.O5.4OL7 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India (referred to and extracted above) (h) Office order, dated 22.O1.2OL9 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India (referred to and extracted above) The Writ Petition is diso sed of. uoon consent of both the tearned counsel on record, directinq the 21 resDondent to consider the qrievance of the petitioner as put-forth vide petitioner's detailed reDresentation, dated

19.08.2019 addressed to the 3'd respondent herein I I n h h h r w charqe memo, dated 03l09.O8.2018 issued to the petitioner and which had been acknowledoed bv the office of the 3'd resoondent herein in Auo ust 2019 atself a nd h ad I not even been considered or allowed or reiected even as on date an r nformi wt r of natural iustice bv orovidinq an ooportunitv of pejgonal hearinq to the petitioner. It as further observeilthaE the oetitioner is at libertv to Dut-forth all the oleas as Dut- I8 SN. J \ fo hint he oresent Writ o tition in add ition to all the !eoal Dlea sasare avar lable to the oetiti ner nsu ort of er' andth e cha qe er' eci !co ection to th lurrs ictio n of the 3r.l respo ndent herein emo. date d 03.o8.20 18 issued to the titi er herein nd the r s o ent hall and o DDTO petitioner' riate reasoned o rders on pre entation, dated 19.08.2019 withina Den od of two ( 2) weeks form the date ofr eceipt of cooy to the decisio n or er h petitioner. H owever, here s hall b no order astocosts. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendincl in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. I I I n To, //TRUE COPY// {;D/- N.RAJAGOPAL R -ir;.;:. R

1. The secretary, Dept. of Empowerment of persons with t)isabilities Ministrv of Social justice and Empowerment, Govt. of lndia,Antyodaya Bhavan, l.iew Delhi - 1 10003.

2. llu Joint Secretary, Dept. of Empowerment of pers,rns with Disabilities Mrnrstry of Sociql justice and Empowerment, Chairperson, EC, NEplD, Manovikasnagar. Secunderabad 3 ]he Director, National lnstitute for the Empowermert of persons with lntellectual Disability. Manovikasnagar, Secunddrabad

4. The Deputy Director, Natlonal lnstitute for the Empowerrnent of persons with lntellectual Disability. Manovikasnagar, Secunderabad

5. One CC to SRI M SRIKANTH, Advocate tOpUCl 6. One CC to DEPUW SOL|C|TOR GENERAL OF tNDtA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OpUC]

7. Two CD Copies .t: -rl,i;l ',t:',.l,' i .el;i+ . , : .i lJ:'! . , W- HIGH COURT DATED:2410612025 CC TODAY \iE STrrf n.. I (-) (..) ,.<, [s lri i05 \.+:- - I t

1. -. /,' 't. ,.,.' ,, ORDER WP.No.20794 ot 2020 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS U I lf