The High Court · 2025

Judgment

5. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Director of School Education, Saifabad, Beside Telephone Bhavan, Lakidikapool, Hyderabad The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal, Telangana. The District Educational Officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, The Mandal Educational t Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Proc. Rc.No.2669/A7lA4lEstVSuspensionl202O-21 dated 28-03-2023 passed by the 4th Respondent treating the suspension period lrom 25-12-2020 to 09-07-2021 as eligible leave and observation of "Warned Severely" as illegal arbitrary and patently erroneous and consequently pass orders treating the suspension period from 25-12-2O20 to 09-07-2021 as "on duty". OF 20t23 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 suspend the 2669lA7lA4lEstt/Suspension/2021-21 dated 28-03-2023 until disposal of the Writ impugned order vide Proc.RC.No. Petition and pass

Counsel for thr: Petitioner: SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: ORDER >i 3 SN,J W.P.No.19236 2023 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard Sri Raja Shekar Rao Salvaji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Services -I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. oraver as under: ".....to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Proc. RcNo. 2669 /A7 / A4/ EsLt/ Suspension/ 2O2O- 21 dated 28- 03- 2023 passed by the 4th Respondent treating the suspension period from 25-12'2020 to 09-07- }OZL as eligible leave and observation of "Warned Severely" as illegal arbitrary and patently erroneous and consequently pass. orders treating the srtspension period from 25-12-2O2O to 09-07- 2O2L as on duty and pass......"

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is working as School Assistant and in-charge Headmaster at ZPHS Mailaram, was suspended on ,- 4 SN,J W.P.No.19235 2023

25.12.2O2O based on an allegation that the petitioner att(:mpted to mediate in a case involving misconduct by crirrinal case was another teacher. Subsequently a registered against the petitioner, but the petitioner was acq uitted by the Fast Track Sessions Court, Kothagudem, on 27.1)8.2021. Despite the petitioner,s acquittal, the 4th res;rondent passed an order dated Og.O7.2O2l treating the suspension period as eligible leave instead of ,on duty,, without providing the enquiry report or following due procedure under Rule 54-B of the Telangana Fundamental Rules and the CCA Rules, 1991. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 7n A) "In view of the above, based on the e vailable records, rep.ort of the enquiry officer, and I i a.l 5 SN,J W.P.No.19236 2023 in view of the Judgment Dt. 27-OB-2O2L of the Hon'ble Court, of the Fast Track Sessions Judge for the Expeditious Disposal of Cases of rape and Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act (pocso) Act at Kothagudem vide reference 15th cited, he is found not guilty for the offences the District Educational Officer, Kothagudem is hereby decided to Warned severely for her Iapses in violation of the orders issued by the authority and insubordination performing her legitimate duties with instructions to be more careful and not to repeat such lapses in future. The suspension period of the individual will be treated as eligible Ieave." B) The relevant oortion of the iudqment dated

27.O8.2O21 oassed in Soecial Sessions Case No.54 of 2O21 by the Fast Track Sessions Judqe for Expeditious Disoosal of Cases of Raoe and Protection of Children aqainst Sexual Offences Act (POCSOT Act at Kothaoudem is extracted hereunder: '131. As seen from the aforesaid, material available on record, accused Nos.3 to 8 and 10 advised the parents of the victim girls to make a representation in the office of MEO concerned. Therefore, accused Nos.3 to 8 and 10 acted properly, when the sexual assault made by 6 SN,J W.P.No.19235 2023 accused No.1 towards the victim girls brought to their notice. The only grievance against accused Nos.3 to 8 from the parents of the victim girls is that they restrained them to lodge a repoft in the police station concerned, except that, there is no other allegation against accused Nos.3 to B. Further, accused No.10. who is the Mandal Educational Officer and superior officer of accused No.1, on receipt of Ex. P2- representation from the parents of the victim girls. Immediately he forwarded the same to the DEO concerned, for taking necessary action. After conducting preliminary enquiry, P.W.20 who is the FAC of DEO, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, accused No.1 was placed under suspension. Therefore, accused Nos.3 to 8 and 10 acted properly when the sexual assault made by accused No.1 towards the victim girls brought to their notice and advised the parents of the victims properly to make a representation to the MEO concerned for taking necessary action against accused No.1. Therefore, accused Nos.3 to I and 10 did not support accused No.1 and did not putforth compromise proposal to :he parents of the victims by offering any amounts :nd further accused No.10 has acted timely by 'brwarding Ex. P2 representation made by the lrarents of the victims to the DEO concerned i.P.W .24) for taking necessary action against nces. it is ;rccused No.1. In these circu 7 sN,r w.P.No.19236 2023 unsafe to convact accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 on the basis of materaa! avaitabte on record"' c) Rute o.54-B (3) a (41 of the Telan Fundamental Rutes is extracted hereunder: "(3) Which is relevant for the case in hand Rule 54-8.(3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended. (4r In a case fallino under sub-rule (31 the oeriod of susoension shall be treated as a oeriod spent on dutv for all DurDoses"' D) The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the resoondents and in oarticutar' Daraoraoh No's is extracted hereunder: "5. It is submitted that the issue involved in this case is under the provisions of POCSO Act, petitioner being the teacher and incharge Head Master of the school could have diligently handled the situation, whereas, as per the charge memo it could be seen that the petitioner tried to 8 SN,J W.P.No.19236 2023 compromise the issue between the parents and the accused which was found fault by this office and punishment as awarded leniently." DISCU ION AND COIVC USION:

5. l.earned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that, in view of the judgment dated

27.OA.2O21 in Special Sessions Case No. 54 of 2021 on the file of the Fast Track Sessions Judge for Expeditious Dispcsal of Cases of Rape and protection of Children from SexLral Offences (POCSO) Act at Kothagudem, the petitioner is entitled to have the suspension period from 25.t2.2O2O to

09.O7.2021 treated as 'on duty' with all consequential benefits, as provided under Rules 54-8(3) and (4) of the Telangana Fundamental Rules. However, respondent No.4 failerl to. consider the facts and merits of the case and passed the impugned order dated 28.O3.2O23, treating the said:;uspension period as eligible leave and issued a strong warn ng as per the earlier proceedings dated 09.O7 .2O2L .

6. Loarned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings dated 2g.O3.2023 passed by respondent No.4, treating the suspension period 9 SN,J w.P.No.19236_2023 from 25.12.2020 to 09.07.202L as eligible leave with the observation "warned severely,,, is illegal, arbitrary, and erroneous and the said suspension period ought to be treated as 'on duty,' duly considering the judgment dated 27.08.202t passed in favour of the petitioner in S.S.C. No. 54 of 2027 by the Fast Track Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, at Kothagudem.

7. Learned Assistant Government pleader placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, in particular, paragraph Nos.4 and 5 and also the judgment of the Apex Court in .'The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs. M.Prabhakar Rao" dated 28.07.2011 and in particular, paragraph No.11 and contends that even where the employee is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is for the competent authority to form its opinion whether the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified and so long as such opinion of the competent authority was a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the material before i 10 SN,J W.P.No.19236 2023 him, r;uch opinion of the competent authority would not be interfered by the Tribunal or the Court and contends that there is no illegality in the impugned proceedings dated

28.O3.2023 issued against the petitioner herein.

8. A bare perusal of the para 131 of the verdict dated 27.08.2021 passed in Special Session Case No.54 of 2021 by the Fast Track Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and Protection of Children against Sexual Offen:es (POCSO) Act at Kothagudem referred to and extrar:ted above indicates that it is an order passed on meri$ with a clear observations that it is unsafe to convict accused Nos.2 to 8 and 10 on the basis of material available on rr:cord and hence this Court opines that the 4th respondent acted arbitrarily without application of mind, without assigning any valid reasons and issued the impul;ned proceedings dated 28.03.2023 mechanically and hastily without disclosing the basis on which respondent No.4 formed the opinion to treat the suspension period from

25.t2.2020 to 09.07.2021 as eligible leave, along with the observation "warned severelY." I 11 sN,.i w.P.No.19236_2023

9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that in view of petitioner's alleged involvement in crime No.206 of 2Q2O of P.S. Laxmidevipally charged under Section 202 of IPC and Section 21 (1) and Section 2l (2) of Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 registered against the petitioner which however ended in an acquittal vide verdict dated 27.08.2021 passed in Special Sessions Case No.54 of 2O2l on the file of Fast Track Sessions Judge for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act at Kothagudem, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and since the criminal case itself ended in an acquittal on merits, the order impugned dated 28.O3.2023 passed by the 4th respondent cannot be sustained.

10. The iudq 3O.O3.1999 reoorted in (1999) 3 SCC 679 in "il.Paul nt of the ADex Court dated Anthonv. vs. Bharat Gold Manes Ltd. and another", an oartacular, para 34, 35 and 36 are extracted hereunder: "34. There is yet another reason for discarding the whole of the case of the respondents. !2 sN,l W.P.No.19236 2023 As pointed out earlier, the criminal case as also the departmental proceedings were based on identical set of facts, namely, 'the raid conducted at the appellant's residence and recovery of incriminating articles therefrom.' The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, a copy of which has been placed before us, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by Police Officers and Panch witnesses, who had raided the house of the appellant and had effected recovery. They were the only witnesses examined by the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer, relying upon their statements, came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the court, on a consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the orosecutaon was thrown out and the aooellant was acouitted. In this situation. therefore. where the appellant is acouitted bv a iudicia! Dronouncement with the findino that the "raid and recoverv" at the residence of the apoellant were not oroved, it would be uniust, urtlair and rather oooressive to allow the findinqs recorded at the ex- Darte deDartmental proceed:nos, to stand. 13 SN,J W.P.No.19236 2023

35. Since the facts and the evidence in both the proceedings, namely, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were the same without there being any iota of difference, the distinction, which is usually drawn as between the departmental proceedings and the criminal case on the basis of approach and burden of proof, would not be applicable to the instant case.

36. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High Couft is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge, in so far as it purports to allow the Writ Petition, is upheld' The learned Single Judge has also given liberty to the initiate fresh disciplinary respondents to proceedings. In the peculiar citcumstances of the case, specially having regard to the fact that the appellant is undergoing this agony since 1985 despite having been acquitted by the criminal court inlgST,wewouldnotdirectanyfreshdepartmental inquiry to be instituted against him on the same set of facts. The apoellant shail be reinstatqd forthwith on the oost of Securitv Officer and ghall also be oaid ehtire arrears of salarv' tooether with all allowances from the date of suqpension till his reinstatement, within three months. The aooeltant would also be entitled to his cost which is quantified as Rs'15'OOO/-' t4 sN,j W.P.No.19236 2023

11. The iu ment of the ADex Court reDorted in 2006 5 t;CC 446 in "G.M. Tank vs. State of cuiarat & Othrers," in oarticular. oaraoraoh Nos.3O and 31 are extracted hereunder: 3O. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case. the deoartmental proceedanos and the criminal case are based on identical and samilar set of facts and the charoe inade rtmental case aqaanst the aD nt and the cha before the minal court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom, The Investigating Officer Mr V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by its judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to noticed that the iudicial oronouncement was made after a reoular trial and on hot contest. Under these I

31. allowed." L2.

28. 15 SN,J W.P.No.19236 2023 and the decision case, the APPellate the original mark 2L -4-L972 and the witnesses examined 16 sN,l W.P.No.19236 2023 l:he orosecution miserablv failed to orove the at after a readi o of the n onlv be arri r:harqe 'iudom t in its enti The Court in iudicial review is oblaoed to examine the substance of the :iudoment and not oo bv the form of exDression used.

29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate .)udge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the ,:harge against the appellant was not just, "not proved" - in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very lrosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is ;aid to be "disproved" when. after considering the Tlatters before it, the court either believes that it does 1ot exist or considers its non-existence so Probable 'that a orudent man ouoht, under the circumstances of the particular case. to act uoon the suooosition that it does not exist' A fact is said !o b€ "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor 'disproved" (see Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P. lviiayee Singh v. State of U.P., (.1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (cri) 3781 ).

13. In W.P. o.7O2O ot 2(J23, whereunder in identical clrcum tances, this Court all d the writ the Detit er thereun der vide Iu oment dated ,J6.12.2'J24 erved as nder: "14)C om tno to the aaqe onha nd the charoe memo was assued to the Detitioner on the oround that he was involved in a crimina! case. Which was admittedlv and ultimatelv ended in acouittal vide iudqment 1.03.2022 Dassed bv the V ditional Sessions ludoe. II-FTC, Waranoal at Jan oaon, in Sessions C se No.24 of 2019. urther, the witnesses cited in criminal case a well as in deDartmental oroceedinqs vide charqe memo Therefore. havino reoard to the law laid 1 q .o7.20 anA t h s SN,J W.P.No.19236 2023 77 liabletob set a :t 15 A rdin !i,. ew ito tition ls r D. .No.1 864t 2021 .L&/B817,-.2tJ18 No 3 and the order i Rc.N0.3951T21zlJ22. ( directed 4 29 o,4.20 2O as Der F ndam ental ns,o of I le54." L4. This Court opines that the judgment relied upon by the learned Assistant Government pleader, dated 2B.O7.20tt, in The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v: M. prabhakar Rao, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. This Court does not accept the proposition that, even where an employee is acquitted in a criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is solely for the competent authority to form an opinion on whether the suspension was whoily unjustified in view of the clear observations of the Apex Court in the various juclgments referred to and discussed above and since the verdict dated 18 SN,J w.P.No.19236 2023 (

27.08.2O2t passed in Special Session Case No'54 of 2OZl by the Fast Track Sessions ludge for expeditious disposal of cases of Rape and Protection of Children against Sexual Offen<:es (POCSO) Act at Kothagudem is an order passed on merits;infavourofthepetitioneracquittingthepetitioner and s,ince the same had been the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner herein' this Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition'

15. A N N c E N a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petit'oner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appr:aring on behalf of the respondents' c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filecl on behalf of the respondents, 7 ./ I I 19 SN,J W.P.No.19236 2023 d) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above), (i) (ii) (i:i) (1999) 3 sCC 679 2006 (s) scc 466 2023 SCC Online Sc 1618 (.v) The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. M.Prabhakar Rao (v) Judgment dated O6.L2.ZOZ4 . W.P.No.7O2O ot 2l,23 passed The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order vide R.C.No.2669/A7/A4lEsttlsuspension/ 2O2O-2L dated 28.03.2023 passed by the respondent No.4 treating the suspension period frcfi 2S.L2.2OZO to O9.O7.2(J21 as eligible leave with an observation of "Warned Severely" in the said proceedings admittedly as borne on record being bereft of reasons, is set aside and the respondents are directed to forthwith consader the request of the petitioner for passing irrders treating the suspension period from 25.12.202lJ to O9.O7.2O21 as "on duty,, duly taking into consideration the observations in the verdact dated 27.Oa.2O21 passed in Speciat Sessions Case No.54 of 2O2L by the Fast Track Sessions Judge for I \ (, 20 sN,j w.P.No.19236 2023 Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and Protection of Children against Sexual Offences AGt (POCSO) Act at Kothagudem (referred to and extracted above), and duty considering the observations of the Apex court an the judgments referred to and extracted aborre and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law within a period of three(3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitaoner herein. However, there shal! be no order as to costs. Misceilaneous applications, ii any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S GOWRI SHANKAR T REG ECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE S (For Her Ladyships Kind Perusa PALLI NANDA To,

1. The Secretary, School Education Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telanl;ana.

2. The Din;ctor of School Education, Saifabad, Beside Telephone Bhavan, Lakidikapool, Hyderabad

3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal, Telangana. 4. The District Educational Officer, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, 5. The Mandal Educational Officer, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 6. 11 LRCopies I

7. The Under secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company Affairs, New Delhi. B. Ihg..Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High court Buildings, Hyderabad. -

9. one cc to SRI RAJA SHEKAR RAo SALVAJ!, Advocate [opuc] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-!, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

11.Two CD Copies BSR BS MMT I n \ \ t ! HIGH COURT DATED: 0710712025 I t i I HE,I SIA -,'^.\ ORDER C) 2 I JAl| 2026 WP.No,.19236 of 2023 * ---l::.' il:ti ., ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT GOSTS MMT 1e &t