High Court · 2025

petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed thererrr the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or 0,r"",,o''tn' n more particularly a writ of Mandamus decraring the orders passed by 3rd respondent vide proceedings Roc. no ElrclrE-92g7or2o1g' Dated 23.08-2019 in pracing the petitioner under suspension on the ground of making excess payment to the contractors even though on the very same charges the punishment was given to the petitioner earlier after concluding the enquiry as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and contrary to the rures and vioration of principres of naturar justice and set aside the suspension order passed by 3rd respondent vide proceedings Roc. no.E1lc.1/E- 9287012019, Dated 23.08.20'rg by further directing the 3rd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as superintendent with a, consequentiar benefits in the interest of justice. IAN O:1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circ the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court grant interim suspension of the orders passed by the 3 proceedings Roc no'E1/C 1tE'g2B7Ol2O19' Dated 23'O8 2 direction to reinstate the petitioner into service as Superinte of .iustice pending disposal of the above writ petition umstances stated in may be Pleased to rd resPondent vide 0'19 with a further ndent in the interest IANO:2 oF 2019 Between: TheGreaterWarangalMunicipalCorporation,Warangal.Rep.byits Commissioner ...PETITIONERY RESPONDENT AND I K. Jeevan Rao, S/o. Ramchander, Age. 33 years, occ. Superintendent (GWMC ), Warangal. nvo n li'r'| lilo-zz''i<umirpdttv' Hanamkonda' Warangal District ...RESPONDENT/ WRIT PETITIONER Z 3 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principle Secretary' Municipal .. . Alj;i"i;i,"'ii;;;no"urof,n d5,"rti'""t Dbpartment' Secretariat Buildinss' Hvderabad. filE"i;ffiirrioner and Director of tr/unicipal Administration, State of rerangana' Hvderabad ilEEI',J'-tJSrrtJ PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted in lA No'1 of 2019 in W'P No' 20435 ol 2019' dated 20-09-2019. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NAYAKAWADT RAMESH iounsel for the Respondent No.1&2: GP FOR MPCL ADMN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PASHAM MOHITH SC FOR GWMC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEET,IAPAKA WRIT PETITIONNo .20435of 2079 ORDE R: Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant

2015. approval Warangal Municipal Senior Assistant in He held additional compassionate grounds on 12.08.2O0g in Corporation and was later promoted as 2011 and Superintendent on 2g.O5.2O14 charge as Accountant from December 2013 to April Before his appointment as Accountant, administrative for two road works whs granted, tenders were floated on 18.01.2013, and work orders were issued on 04.O2.2013. Therefore, he had no role in the tender process or execution. A show-cause notice dated 01.06.2015 was issued based on a vigilance enquiry alreging missing files and M_Books. He submitted a detailed explanation on 10.06,2O15, stating that the files were sent to the E_l section after contractor payments. The Enquiry Officer, without proper enquiry, submitted a report on 13.04.2017 holding the charges proved. Based on this, the 3rd respondent issued a notice on 11. IO.2OI7. The petitioner replied on 2O.LO.2OIZ, denying the charges and requesting to drop further action. However, without considering his 2 NBK,J w.P. No.20415 0f 2019 explanation, Punishmen stopping two annual gra rvas again The Petitioner charges, desPite Prior t was imPosed ot 30'12'2017 bY de increments with cumulative effect' suspended on 23 'O8 2Ol9 on the same Therefore' enquiry and Punishment' amounts to double Punishment furthe initiating fresh Proceedings the same issue, this rs legallY imPermissible The petitioner r contends that he was not the competent authority to cheques, and the enquiry failed to record statements of the contractors involved or provide him with the Vigilance report' Thus, the impggned order passed by the 3'd respondent is contrary to law and liable to be set aside'

2. Heard Sri Nayakawad'i Ramesh' learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr'Pasham Mohith' learned Standing Counsel for GWMC for respondent No'3' Perused the record'

3. This Court uide rrrtert:,l,._ order dated 20'O9'2019 in and direction and I.A.No. 1 of 2Ol9 granted interim suspension the same reads as follows: "The order of suspension is challenged primarily on the ground that on the very same issue, earlier disciplinary proceedings were initiated culminating in I 3 NBKJ W-P. No.20435 of 2019 imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect by order dated 30.72.2017. If what is contended is true, it is not permissible to conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings on the same issue. There is no reference to any such decision taken to withdraw the earlier disciplinary proceedings and to start fresh proceedings. Even in the event of taking fresh proceedings, pima facie, placing the petitioner under suspension is not warranted. Having regard to the fact that conducting of disciplinary proceedings earlier by the disciplinary authority and imBosing punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, balance of convenience is in favour of petitioner. Hence, interim suspension and direction as prayed for. "

4. Learned Standing counsel for respondent No.3 placed on record the order dated 26. 11.2022, passed by respondent No.3, and the result of the said order reads as follows: "ln view of the orders passed by the Honlcle High Court and representation made by Sri K'Jeevan Rao, Superintendent & the then (I/c) Accountant, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, the matter has been carefully examined as per standing orders of the Government and hereby ordered to re-instate Sri K.Jeevan Rao, Superintendent & the then (l/c) 4 NBK,J W.P. No.20435 of 2019 - Accountant, Greater Warangal Municipal Corporatron into duty forth with i.e., from the date of submission joining report to duty by him, pending inquiry of all the charges issued against him by the Government and also subject to outcome of the result of all court cascs pending against him." l,earned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of 5. the order dated 26.11.2022, now the only point for consideration is whether the period of suspension can be treated as 'on duty'

6. A perusal of the record shows that initially petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect on 30.12.2017. Again, for the same charges, he was suspended on 23.Og.2olg which amounts to be double punishment. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension as on duty for all practical purposes.

7. Therefore, the proceedings dated 23.Og.2)lg is hereby set aside and the Writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 to treat the period of suspension as on duty. There shall be no order as to costs. 5 NB(., W.P. No.204f5 of20t; Miscellaneous closed. applications, if any pending, shall stand To IITRUECOPYII SD/-K. SREE RAMA MURTHY EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The prin ciple Secreta ry, Munici De partm ent, Secreta 2. Th riat Buildin eCommissioner a nd Dire Telan gana Hydera bad 3. The Com missioner Greater 4. One cct o SRI NAYAKA WA DI RA ME SH, Advocate 5.'Two CCs toGPFOR MP CL AD MN& URBA N DEV, 6 One Ccto SRt pA SHAM MOHITH,SCF OR GHMC [OPUC 7 One C to M/s. p LAKSHM SC FOR GWMC tOPUcl C B. Two C D Copies gs, ctor of Waran ga I Municipal Corporatio Warangal lon and U State of Telan dministration, State of of Tela nsana, at H erabad lourl Administrat Hyderabad Municipat A n loPuct High C6 rban Dev l elopment urt for the State PSK, Bs q. HIGH COURT DATED:2410612025 ORDER WP.No.20435 of 2019 l, )- 1 1 i'.Jl 2$25 * ,/: a.(-o c) i. * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .,t ,1roP\n'a \'+- ---< -1 (\a\o