about 54 years' Occ. Senior v. 1. The Commissioner

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 impugned proceedings circular vide Memo No.CpSSp_ slylE1l1202o, DT.0610312021 of the 1st Respondent communicated through impugned order Memo No.366(p)ser-rvtA2l2o2o, dt.2ilo2l2o21 of the 2nd Respondent as well as impugned proceedings No.74lEl2o12-13, Dt.o4lo6t2o2o of the 1st Respondent besides the Memo No.7552lE1l.1994-95/Vol.ll, dt.08/06/2020 of the 1st Respondent, in the interest of justice, pending disposal of the above writ petition. .a' ..1 Counsel for the Perlitioner: SRI NAyAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Re,spondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the foltowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No. 22463 of 2O2l ORDER: - fftl" writ petition is fiied seeking the following relief: ".........Writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos-1. and 2 in issuing impugned proceedings vide circular vide memo No.CPSSP-Sty/E | /1/2020 dated 06'032021 of the respondent No. 1 communicated through impugned order memo No 366 (P) Ser- tvlA2/2O20, dated' 27.02.2021 on respondent No.2 as well as impugned proceedings No.74 /E / 2Or2-13, Dated 04 '06'2020 of respondent No.1 imposing punishment of "Reduction of time Sca-le of pay by one stage for two years" and also orders "suspension . period ftom 25.O4.2013 to 01'09'2013 is treated as not on dut/ besides tlle memo No.7552/E1/ 1994-95/Vol-II dated 08'06'2020 of the respondent No-1 rejecling promotion of the petitioner ever since from 2O13 and consequentially set aside all impugned proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law violative of principles of natura'l justice.. -. '..'

2. Petitioner herein is a Senior Assistant, Stationery Wing, Printing, Stationery and Stores Purchase Department while functioning as Wareshouseman in Stationery Head Ofhce' Hyderabad during the period 1993 has produced a fake Bachelor's Degree Certificate of a fake non existing Varanasi Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi and on that basis got I I I 2 elevated to the post of Junior Assistant and got subsequent promotions on the basis of said fake certificate and marks sheet, thus he committed a grave misconduct and after conducting the enquiry "REDUCTION OF TIME SCALE OF PAY BY ONE STAGE FOR TWO YEARS" with cumulative effect as laid down under Rule 9 (vii)(a) of the CC&A Rules, 1991. Against the said order he preferred an appeal before tJ e appellate authority. The appellate authority vide Memo No.366 (P) /Ser.lY /A212020 dated 27.O2.2O21 confirmed the order and aggrieved by the said order petitioner preferred this petition.

3. Petitioner herein mainly contended that criminal case registered against him basing on the same allegations but it was ended in acquittal and also contended that an enquiry was also conducted on similar facts and it is to be set aside and further relied upon the rc.I[.Tank v. State o.f Ctujo."at and. ors.a wherein it was held as follows: "hl this case, the departmental proceedttgs and the ciminal case are based on identicol and similar set of facts and thz clnrge in a Departmental cose agairst tLrc appellant and the charge before tlrc Cimirutl Court are one and the sanle. It is true tlutt tlte nature of charge in the deportmental proceedings and in the criminal case is graue. The nature of the case launched against tlw appellant on the basis of euidence and mnterial collected ' 2ooe 1s; s{:c +.to l against him duing enquiry and iruEstbation arul as rellected in the clnrge sheet, factors nentioned dre one and the sam.e' In other tuord.s, charges, euidence, tLitnesses and ciranmstances are one ond the sann-e. In the present case, criminal araT departmental proceedings haue already noticed or gronted on the same set of facts namelg, raid conducted at tte appellant's residence, recouery of ariicles th.erefrom- The Irutestigating Officer, Mr. V.B. Raual and other d.epartm.ental uitnesses were the onlg t itne.sses examined bY the Enquiry Olficer wta bg relging upon th.eir stotement cane to the conclusion that ttLe charges tltere established against the appellant The sanuz u.,itnesses tttere examined in the ciminal case and the criminal courl on the examination ca fiE to the corrclusion ttnl the prosecution h,,s nnt proued the guitt dlleged against tE appellont beyond ong reasonable doubt aruJ acE)itted the appellant bg his judicial pronowrcem-ent tuith the finding that the charge li,-s not been proued. It ts also lo be noticed the judicial pronouncefiEnt LUos mnde after a regular tial and on hot contest' UruJer tlgse circurnstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressiue to altotu the fruTings recorded in the deparTmental proceedings to stan'd' In tle instant case, the appelkut joined the respondent in the Year 1953' He LUas suspended from seruice on 8.2'1979 and got subsistence allotttance of Rs.70O/ - p'm- ie' I l 5070 of the salary. On 15.10.1982 dismissal order uas passed. Tle oppellant has put in 26 gears of seruice uith tlle respondent i.e. -from 1953 1979. TLE appellant would nout superanttuote in February, 1986. On tfuz basis of the same cltarges and. the euidence, the Department passed an ord.er of dismissal on 21.10.1982 uhereos the Ciminal Court acquitted him on 3O.1.20O2. Houeuer, as the Ciminal Court acquitted. tle appellani on 30.1.2002 and until such acqtiftaL there u)as no reason or ground to hold the rlismissal to be enoneous, any relief rnonetaily <:an be o y u-e-f- 3O-1.20O2. But bg then, the appellant hru1 retired, therefore, u.te deem it proper to set aside tlrc order oJ' dismissal uithaut back uages- The oppellant tuould be entitled to pensiotL" ' Petitioner further relied upon a citation reported in Ram Lal o. State of Rojasthrln dnd Ors.,,2 in which rhey relied upon th€. previous citation and directed the respondents to reinstatc the appellant with all consequential benefits including seniont]', notional promotions, fltment of salary and all other benefits. As far as back wages are concerned, we are inclined to award the appellant 5O% of the back wages.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents reported no objection and stated that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on them. 'zoz4 1t; st r tu s I $.t \ 5. Perusal of the record shows that in the criminal case it was observed that prosecution failed to prove whether it is a false degree certiflca'te and they have not collected any other information and ttrey relied upon the documents addressed by p.til.l to the University to know genuineness of the certificate but the said reply given by the University Grants Commission is not clear about the certificate issued by them and it is only the information of t]le University Grants Commission that the Universiq/Varanasi Sanskrit Viswa Vidyalaya" is not on the rolls of University Grants Commission, that is not sufflcient to hold that the accused has created a forged document and produced before the office authorities to get promotion and thus it is insufiicient that accused committed offence accordingly and admittedlY. 6. Petitioner in his explanation stated that name of the said university changed as Sampurnanda Sanskrit University' Varanasi and it is govemed under "Varanasaiah Sanskrit Act in the year 1956 by ttre Government of Uttar Pradesh as such it cannot be said t]lat it is a fake certificate' Petitioner further submittedthatlaterhecompletedpostgraduationbasingonthe graduation degree issued by t1'e said university and the said ceftiflcate was questioned 20 years later by the department and in the meanwhile he was promoted tw.ice' - 6

7. Petiiioner was initially appointed as attender on 22.07.1986 on compassionate grounds, at the time of appointrner.rt, he has passed IX standard and subsequently passed X and promoted as Warehousemen on 2Z-07.1991 and obtained qualification of Bachelors Degree through distalce education and then promoted as Junior Assistant on 23.O7.1994 and also promoted as Senior Assistant on 2O.O7.1999. Considering the fact, the tenure of the employee in the said department and further promotions grarnted w.ithout questionutg the genuineness of tJ:e said document and also tJ.e finding of thc Criminal Court while acquitting the petrtioner and ratio iaid rlown b,v the Hon,ble Apex Court, this Court finds that the order of ihe Disciplinary Authority is not proper and is liable to be set asicl€ 8- Accorrlingl.v, writ petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority and petitioner is entitled for consequen:ial benefits as per the rules. There shall be no order as to costs As a ;cc1uel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand close,l //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY GISTRAR / OFFICER i To 2 I The Conmissio.,er. Printing, Stationery and Stores purchase (stationerv Wing_J ljepartment. Chanchalguda, Hyderabad _500 059. The Principal Secretary, Home Department secretariai, Hyderabad, state of Telangana One CC to SRt NAYAKAWADT.RAMESH, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to cp FOR HONIE, High Court ioi ttre-StatSif ietLngana, at Hyderabad. [OLtT] Two CD Copies 3 4 .5 PSK. BS @) 'tl HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 ORDER WP.No.22463 of 2021 I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS E SIe 16 J zq ilAfi zus ( ( Op .S a o