A. Pochaiah v. State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more paflicularly one in the nature of Writ oi Mandamus declaring that Petitioner is entitled to have his name considered and be included in the Annual Ad hoc Panel of Naib rahsildars for the year 2017- 2018 communicated vide Notice No. DCOAD/A1111009212021 daled ?2- 01- 2021 issued by the 3'd Respondent duly taking into consideration that the Petitioner was promoted as Naib Tahsildar vide Proc. No. 4l/2080/2017 dated Q 1- 03- 2018 and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the T. S. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 duly holding the action of the 3'd Respondent in excluding Petitioners name from the Annual Ad hoQ Panel of Naib Tahsildars communicated vide Notico No. DCOAD/A1111000212021 daled 22' 01- 2021f or the panel year 2017 - 1 B apd the related impugned rejectipn order issued by the 4th Respondent vide impugned Proc. No. A10111412023 daled 25- 04- 2023, as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule 6 of the T. S. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and set- aside the same accordingly in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Fetition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstgnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents [o consider the case of the Petitioner for incluslon of his name in lhe2017- 18 Annual Ad hoc Panel of Naib Tahsildars cornmuniqated by the 3rd Respondent duly suspending the impugned order issued by the 4th Respondent vide impugned Proc No. A10111412023 dated 25.04- 9023. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. RAVICHANDRAN Counsgf for the Regpondents; GP FOR SERVICES I The Cqurt made the following: ORDER .1 -1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.2O662 of 2o.23 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled seeking the following relief: "...declaring that Petitioner is entitled to have his name considered and be included in the Annual Ad hoc Panel of Naib Tahsildars for the year 2017 2018 communicated vide Notice No'DCOADlAllllOOO2l 2O2l dated 22-Ol-2O21 issued by the 3'd Respondent duly taking into consideration that the Petitioner was promoted as Naib Tahsildar vide Proc.No.Al/208012017 dated 01-03-2018 and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6 of the T.S State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 duly holding the action of the 3'd Respondent in excluding Petitioner's name from the Annual Ad hoc Panel of Naib Tahsildars communigated vide Notice No.DCOAD/A1/ OOO2l2O2l daLed 22-Ol-2O21 for the panel year 2Ol7 18 and the related impugned rejection order issued by the 4h Respondent vide impugned Proc.No.A101/1412023 dated 25 O4-2O23 ' as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the provisions of Rule 6 of the T'S State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and set-aside the same accordingly in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as lhis Honllle court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the 2l Heard.Sri V.Ravichandran, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for the respondents l.earned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while 3) the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant during the year 201 1, he .was subjected to disciplinary proceedings vide charge memo dated 14.06.2011 and taking as a Sround, he was also 2 PK, J \^/P 20662 2023 No.A2 / 3446 /201 1, dared withholding of three increments overlooked for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the same, he hled W.p.No.263g2 of 2OlZ wherein vide interim order dated 08.08.2017 respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. Since the said orders were not implemented, petitioner has hied C.C.No.2O66/ 2O1T . At that stage, in order to overcome the interim order dated 08.09.2017, the respondents have passed order O3.ll.2ol7 imposing the penalty of without cumulative effect and submitted before this Court that the interim order dated 08.08.2017 cannot be complied with in view of the punishment order dated OS.l.l.2OlZ. However, this Court has not accepted the said plea on the ground that at the time of passing of the interim order dated C,8.OB.2OlZ, no punishment orders were in existence against the petitioner. As such, left with no other option, the respondent No.3 has issued order vide proc.No.All2 OBO l2O1Z, dated 01.03.201g, promoting the petitioner as Naib rahsildar during the panel year 2O1Z _2O1g and since then he has been working as Naib Tahsildar and fuliy etigible for inclusion of his name in the Ad hoc Annual panel of Naib Tahsildars. However, in the Ad hoc Annual panel of Naib Tahsildars for the year 2OlZ_2O7g communicated vide Notice No.DCOAD/Al/ t/OO2/2021, dated, 22.07.2021, the name of the petitioner was excluded. Therefore, a 1 -J PK, J wP 20662 2021 he filed W.P.No.46299 ol 2022 and the same was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.12.2022 directing respondent No'4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated O6't2'2O22 duty taking into consideration the promoti6n proceedings dated

01.03.2018. In pursuance thereof, respondent No'4 had passed the impugned order dated 25-04.2023 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for inclusion on the ground that he was under currency of punishment during the relevant point of time and that his objections were not submitted in time, which contention was already not accepted by this Hon'ble Court while dealing with C.C. No.2066 l2Ot7. lrarned counsel has further submitted that while the 4l petitioner is working as Naib Tahsildar at Jaipur Mandal, respondent No.4 had placed.the petitioner under suspension vide proceedings No.A1/ 138gJ2O2O-l dated 21.12'202O and later pursuant to the orders of this Hontrle Court, the suspension order was reviewed and the petitioner was reinstated into service on 28.Ot.2022. Further, respondent No.3 had also initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide proceedings No.Al/ l38gl2O2O-1, daled 23.02.2021 for which the petitioner submitted a detaiied written statement of defense on 24'O3'2021' Without considering the same, an Inquiry Offrcer was appointed to -4- NPK, J wP 20662 20Zf conduct departmental enquiry. However, tiil date, the enquiry is not completed even though four years are elapsed from the date of issuance of charge memo. Further, the respondents have excluded the name of the petitioner from the annual Ad hoc panel for the year 2017 -2O 18 which will have a direct bearing on promotion of the petitioner to the post of Tahsildar. Learned counsel has contended that respondent No.4 had failed to consider the promotion order dated 01.03.2018 and the orders earlier passed by this Honble Court. Further, once again placing reliance on the currency of punishment suffers from non-application of mind to the relevant facts of the case. It is further contended that once the petitioner was promoted as Naib Tahsildar in implementation of the order passed by this Court, it is not open for the respondents to exclude the name of the petitioner from the Annual Ad hoc panel of Naib Tahsildars for the year 2Ol7-2O1g. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to allow the writ petition. Further, after reserving the matter, it was Lrrought to the notice of the Court that this Hon'ble Court has set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner on 03.1 I.2O|T in W.p.No.248 of 2O18 vide judgment dated 16.1 1.2023. 5) Per contra, the learned Government pleader has contended ttrat based on the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional 5 PK, J wP 20661 2023 Oflicer, Mancherial, vide Lr.No.A/ 703612016, dated 16.12.2O2O, that the petitioner had shown gross dereliction of his duties and failed to submit the facts as per the records to the Tahsildar, Jaipur Mandal, which led to recommending the Naddinala land (z6ro usage land) to an extent of Acs.6- 10 guntas situated at Kanchanpalli Village, Jaipur Mandal, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide Proc.No.Al / 1359 l2O2O-1, dated 21.12.2O2O. Thereafter, as per Rule 20 of TS (CC&A) Rules 1991, an Article of Charge (Form-ll) was issued to the petitioner vide Proc.No.Al/1389 l2O2O-1, dated 23.O2.2O2t and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial was appointed as Inquiring Authority to enquire into the allegations against the petitioner. pending the enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide Proc.No.A 1 / 1 389 / 2O2O, dated 28.O t.2022. Further, the Inquiring Ofhcer after due enquiry has concluded that the Article of Charges against the petitioner are proved and the file is under circulation for awarding punishment. Therefore, the name of the petitioner was not included in the Ad hoc Annual panel for the year 2OlZ-lg, but not due to issuance of charge memo. Further, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was under suspension. Therefore, as per G.O.Ms.No.257, GAD (Ser.C) Department, dated 10.06.1999, his name was not included in the list. Further, earlier also, the petitioner was awarded the punishment of withholding of three -6- \-- t \t PK, J wP 20662 2023 - a rncrements without cumulative effect vide proc.No.A2/3 466/2011, dated 03.1l.2O1Z. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6) This Court has taken note of the .submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 7) The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though he was promoted to the post of Naib Tahsildar vide proceedings No.A1/2080/2012, dated01.03.201B, the respondents have rejected his claim to incrude his name in the Ad hoc panel of Naib Tahsildars of erstwhile Adilabad District for the panel year 2017-2O18 vide impugned proc.No.A1O1 /14/2023, dated 25.04.2023, mainly on two grounds viz., (1) the petrtioner was under currency of punishment and (2) the petitioner was under suspension vide Proc.No.All l38g /2O2O_1, dated 21.12.2O2O, pursuant to the report submitted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mancherial vide Lr.No.A/ 7036/2016, dated 16. 12.2O2O. 8) Insofar as first ground is concerned, it is pertinent to note that initially the petitioner has hled W.p. No.26382 of 2OlT seeking to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar wherein utde interim order dated 08.08.2017, this Court directed the respondents to consider his case for promotion. As the respondents have not implemented the said interim order, petitioner has frled C.C. No.2066 12017. At that .! 7 PK, J wP-20662 2023 stage, the promotion order dated 01.O3.2O1g was issued to the petitioner. Relevant portion of the said promotion order reads as under: -Ihe Government pleader for Services, Hon,ble High Court, Hyderabad, vide reference 2"d cited has informed that, the petitioner filed C.C.No.2066 of 2017 in Wp No.26382 of 2Ol7 for not implementing the interim orders granted by the Hon,ble High Court. The department filed the vacate stay petition No.4928 of 2017 alongwith counter affidavit as well counter in the Contempt Case also stating that subsequent to passing of the interim orders, the petitioner suffered with punishment of withholding of three annuar grade increments without cumulative effect vide Proc.No.A2l3446/2O1t, dated 03.i1.2017 and hence, the individual is not entitled for promotion to the post of Naib Tahsildar. The Government pleader has further informed that, the Hon,ble High Court not accepted the contention raised by the department and opined that, as on the date of granting of the interim directions, the petitioner is not suffering with any punishment. The Hon,ble Court also come to a conclusion that, the charge memo relating to 2011 and the department not concluded within the stipulated period as prescribed by the Government from time to time_ For the delay on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be ignored for promotion and the Hon'ble High Court directed the authorities to implement the interim orders within . two weeks, failing which appropriate action will be initiated under Contempt of Courts Act." 9) From the above, it is clear that the plea of currency of punishment was already taken by the department in Contempt Case, however, the same was not accepted by this Court while dealing with Contempt Case. Further, the currency of punishment was also ended by November, 2020. Therefore, the respondents 8- PK, J wP_20662 2021 \]-\--1 \l \ a are restrained from tating the ground of currency of punishment for non-inclusion of name of the petitioner in Annuai Ad- hoc panel of Naib Tahsildars and the said ground is not available to the respondents. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that vide order dated 16. 11.2023 passed in W.p.No.24B of 2OlB, a learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the punishment imposed on the petitioner vide proceedings No.A2l3 44612011, dated 03.11.2OI7. Therefore, the reliance placed by the regard for passing the impugned rejection respondents in this order is misconceived. 10) Insofar as another ground is concerned, the material on record would disclose that while the petitioner was working as Naib Tahsildar at Jaipur Mandal, he was placed under suspension on 21 .12.2O2O, however, he was rernstated into service on proceedings initiated against 2a.OI.2O22, pending departmenta-l the petitioner vide proceedings No.All 1389/2O2O-1, datecl 23.o2.2o2r and though the enquiry was concluded, no rrnar orders are passed till date by the Disciplinary Authority. 1 1) To adjudicate upon this, this Court deems it apt to refer to Clause 7 of G.O.Ms.No.2SZ, GAD, dated 04.08.1997, which reads as under: \ -9- PK, J wP 20662 2023 "7. If the officer concerned is acquitted, in the criminal prosecution on the merits of the cases or is fully exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the adhoc promotion aJready made may be conhrmed and the promotion treated as a regular one from the date of the adhoc promotion with all attendant benefitq.. In case the officer could have normally got his regular promotion from a date prior to the date of his adhoc promotion with reference to his placement in the Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings and the actual date of promotion of the person ranked immediately junior to him by the Departmental Promotion Committee, he would also be allowed his due seniority ald benefit of notional promotion." 12) A reading of the above makes it crystal clear that G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 04.Oa.lgg7, para 7 stipulates certain guidelines for consideration of employees who are facing disciplinary enquiries in regard to their appointment by promotion or transfer to higher categories, but there is no specihc bar for inclusion of the name of the officers under suspension in the list of Annual Ad hoc Panel. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the name of the petitioner was not included, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.257, dated 04.O8.lgg7, is without anv basis arrd thereby unsustainable. On this ground also, the impugned rejection order is liable to be set aside. 13) Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed, the impugned order vide Proc.No. AlOl /14/2023, dated 25.04.2023, is set aside and the respondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner in the Annual Ad hoc panel of Naib Tahsildars for the panel year I I - 10- PK. J \\P 20662 2023 2017-2O18 published vide Notice No.DCOAD/A 1/OOO2/2021 , dated 22.Ot.2021. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed No costs //TRUE COPY// SD/-L. VIJAYA LAXMI REGISTRAR ASS ON OFFICER ]ne ChjeJ Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat,T. S State of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and'Chief Secretary to Gove_rnment, Telangana State, Hyderabad. The District Collector, Adilabad Dist'rict. Aditabad. The District Collector, Mancherial District, Mancherial. One CC to Sri V. Ravichandran, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Services ll, High Cour:t fbr the State of Telpngana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copiqs To, 1 2 3 4 6 7 B TJ BS HIGH COURT DATED:28t0312025 ORDER WP.No.20662 of 2023 ( ^q -) 1 $f- STAre 0 2 ilAY ?[25 t oEspar a -.^g-o t) C -f -//,/ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS [4*"e w-