S. Satyanarayana v. 1. The Commissioner and Director of Tribal Welfare

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 02-03-2015 granted in (O.A No. 1343 of 2015) in W.P.(TR) No. of 2017. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. BHARATH SHAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - lll The Court made the following: ORDER ,') THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION (TRl No.34O5 ot7Ol7 ORDER: This Writ Petition (TR) is filed seeking to declare the impugned proceedings of respondent No. 1 bearing Rc.No.Al/ 1356/2014 dated

27.OL.2015, as void, iilegal, arbitrary, unconstitutiona-l and contrary to thc principles of natural justice, and consequentiy, to set aside thc same.

2. Heard Sri M. Bharath Shah, learned counscl appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill, on behalf ol the respondents.

3. I-earned counsel for the petitioner submits that rvhile the petitioner was working as an Assistant Tribal Welfare Officer, Venl(atapuram, on FAC basis, one Mr. L. Ramdas, Secondary Grade Teacher ancl Deputy Warden of the Hostel (Ashram Schools) of Ashram High School, Narayanaraopet, had shifted six quintals of rice from the hostel, which was caught by the villagers. However, the petitioner was placed under suspension by respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 26.10.2014, alleging certain lapses on his part witJr regard to the inspection of the Tribal Welfare Dducational Institutions. Therea-fter, respondent No.2 issued a Charge Memo dated 13.11.2O14, framing certain charges, alleging that though he was physically present at the Institution, he lvas trnable to control the 2 PK, J W-P-(,iR).No.34OS ol 20 1 7 shifting of rice, and also that he failed to inform the higher officials. In response, he subnrittcd his explalation to the said charge memo on

13.11,.2014, dcny'ing thc charges. While so, prior to the same, on

06.1 1.20 14, the aforesaid Mr. L. Ramdas had submitted a representation to respondent No.2, stating that the petitioner herein was nowhere concerned rvith thc shifting of rice, and that the petitioner was actually unwcll a[ that point of time. Subsequently, an enquiry was conductcd by the Director, 'lrib: Welfare, Bhadrachalam, wherein, thc charges leveled against thc petitioner werc held not proved. Consequently, on considering the explanation of the petitioner and the entire material on record, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated, 12.12.2014, reinstating the petitioncr into service, duly treating his suspension period as eligible leave, and lr'arned l-rirn to be careful in future. However, in spite of the samc, without even putting the petitioner on notice, respondent No. 1 issued impugned proceedings dated 27.01.2015, directing respondent No.2 to conduct a de-trcuo enquiry against the petitioner, on a flimsy ground that the text of the disciplinary proceedings is not in order and specific, which is nothing but illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the Telangana Civil Services (Classihcation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991.

4. It is lurther submitted that the higher authority may exercise its power undcr Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rules, in a case, where, a lower -) 3 PK, J W. P.(TR). No. 340S of 20 1 7 authority imposes a penalty or exonerates a member of service, by superseding the order passed by the lower authority. I{orvever, the said Rule has no application to the presellt case, as respondent No.3 himself is the higher authority/competent authority in the case of the petitioner, who had issued the proceedings dated 12.12.2074, reinstating the petitioner and warning him to be careful in future. It is further submitted that the impugned proceedings dated 27.O1.2015 were issued by respondent No. 1 while the proceedings of respondent No.3 dated 12.12.2014 were still in force. Therefore, respondent No. I has no power or authority to issue the prescnt impugned proceedings, rvithout the cancellation of proceedings dated 12.12.2014. i\s such, the present impugned proceedings are illegal and arbitrary, and therefore, it is prayed to allow the present wri[ petition, by sctting aside the said proceedings dated 27 .OL.2Ol5.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that a Departmental Promotion Committee lr,as convened on, 18.12.2014 to undertake promolions to the post of Assistant Tribal Welfare Offrcer for the year 2OL4-15, wherein, two Hostel Welfare Officers Crade-I, from Zone-V, rvere considered for promotion. Horvevcr, the Committee has considered and cleferred the case of the petitioner hereire, and observed that the text of ttre disciplinary proceedings was not in order and specihc, emphasizing a need for 4 PK, J W.P.(TR).No.3405 of 20 17 conducting a de trouo enquiry against him. It is further submitted that the proccedings datcd 12.I2.2O14, issued by respondent No.3, reinstating the petitioner and r.r,arning him to be careful in future, was not in accordance with the instructions issucd by tl're Government in Circular Memo.No.6O897 lSer.Cl99 dated 12.11.1999. Therefore, respondent No. 1 is justified in issuing the present impugned proceedings dated 27.01.2015, ordering tor a de-nouo cnquiry against the petitioner. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.

6. This Court has taken notc of the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for respcctive parties

7. Admittedly. while the petitioner was working as Hostel Welfare Olircer Grade-l zrnd Assistant Tribal Welfare Oflicer, Venkatapuram, on FAC basis, hc was placed under suspension by respondent No.3 vide order in Rc.No.A 1/ DD(TWI /2294 /2014 dated 26.10.2014. Thereafter, he was issued with a Charge Memo vide proceedings in Rc.No.Al/DD(fWl12294 / 2O14 dated i3.11.2014, with the following articles of charge: "Article of Charges No.l: Tl.rough the ATWO Venkatapuram is physically present in the school, he could not able to control the shifting of rice. Article of Charges No.2: Though the ATWO Venkatapurarn is physically present in thc school he could not intimate the issue to the higher officials. Article of Charges No.3: Though the menu is not maintained in the school he could not control / intimate to higher officials. I 5 PK, J w.P.(TR).NosaOS of 20 I 7 Article of Charges No.4: Though the tendered items were not tal{en form renderers he could not intimate to higher officials. Article of Charges No.5: Though the teachers and workers are not attending to their legitimate duties promptly, he could intimate to highcr officials. -

8. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to Rule 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 199 i , more pa-rticuiarly, Rule 20(3), which is extracted hereunder: "20. (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Oovernment Servant under this Rule and Rule 21, the Disciplinary Authority or the Controlling Authority who is &ot designated as Disciptinary Authorrty and who is subordinate to the Appointing Authority can draw up or cause to be drawn up- (i) The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into dehnite and distinct articles of charge. (ii) A statement of the irnputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, rvhich shall contain- A statcment of all relevant facts including any admission {a) or confession made by the Government Servant. (b) A list of documents by which and a list of witness by lvhom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained."

9. From a bare reading of the charges leveled against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that they are vague and indeirnite in nature, which is contrary to Rule 2O(3) of the CCA Rules. Therefore, the initiation of disciplinary proceedir-rgs in itself is uokl-ab-initio. 6 PK, J w. P.(TR). No. s40s of 2O I 7 i O. As cal bc seen from the record, thc petitioner submitted his explanation to cach ol the charge levelcd agair-rst him, on 13.11.20 14. Thereafter, an cnquiry rvas conducted by thc Deputy Director (TW), Bhadrachalam, r.vherein, the charges could not bc directly proved, and on the basis of the same, rcspondent No.3 issued proceedings Rc.No.A1/ DD(TW)/ 2294/2014 dated 12.I2.2OL4, reinstating the petitioner into scrvice, duly treating his suspenslon period as eligible leave and he was issued a severe $,arning to be careful in future. The relevant portion of the said proceedings is cxtracted hereunder: "Thercfore, after careful examination of the matter, Sri S.Satyanarayana, ATWO Venkatapuram FAC (U/s) is hereby reverted back as HWO Gr-t / re-instated into duty as HWO Gr-l and posted at his original/old place i.e. STBH Paloncha in the existing vacancy, with the following punishment and settled the suspension period as Eligible l,cave. He is hereby severe warned to be careful in future."

11. Now, as rightly contended by the petitioner, even without cancelling the aJoresaid proceedings, respondent No. 1 issued the present impugned proceedings Rc. No.A i / 1 35 6 / 20 | 4 dated 27 .O 1.20 1 5, directing respondent I No.2 to conduct a de-nouo enquiry against the petitioner as per the CCA Rules and to submit his report to respondent No.3 for passing appropriate orders in the matter. According to the respondents, the said proceedings, ordering a de-nouo enquiry, have been issued on the grounds that the text 7 PK, J W.P.('IR)-No.34Os of 20 I 7 in the proceedings dated 72.12.2014 was not in order and specihc, and that the said procccdings were not in accordance with the instructions issued in Circular Memo.No.60897 lSer.C/99 dated 12.11.1999. The relevant portion of the said Circular is extracted hereunder: "lt is observcd in a good number of cases that fina-l orders are being issued by the concerned Disciplinary Authorities with either "Warning" or 'let offl' or "to be more careful in future' etc. None of thess is a punishment listed in the A.P. Civil Services (C.C.A.) Rules as a penalty under Rule 9 of the rules. The disciplinary proceediigs cannot be deemed to havc been concluded they end with one of the penalties mentioned under the C.C.A. Rules if any penalty is imposed or the Delinquent Officer is exonerated and specihcally it is stated that charges are droppcd. Whcn words like warning, let olf etc., are used, it is construed tllat the charges and the guilt of the Officer have bcen proved but a lenient vielv is taken and no punishment is awarded. Such action will not bc in accordance with the C.C.A. Rules. [n vie\v of the abovc, all the Departrncnts of Secretariat are 2. requested to keep the above in vicrv vrhile issuing final orders and suitably instruct the Officers under their control to clearly mention thc penalty imposed if any under the C.C.A. Rules or state the fact of exoneration in case the Charged Officer is proved not guilty, duly dropping the charges."

12. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the proceedir-rgs daled 72.12.2O14, issued by respondent No.3, are not in accordance wirh the aforesaid Circular, thus, warranting the conduct of a de4touo enquiry. However, from a bare reading of thc a-foresaid Circular, it is clear that the authol'ities themselves are duty-bound to bear in mind the instructions of the aforesaid Circular, before passing amy orders in disciplinary matters. ln thc instant case, respondent No.3 has issued proceedings datcd

12.12.2014, reinstating the pel.itioner into service, duly issuing him a 8 PK, J w.P.{TR). No.34os of 20 1 7 severe warning to be careful in future, but no punishment, as enlisted under the CCA Rulcs, was imposed upon him. Hence, this can be construed as an administrative lapsc, lor which, the pctitioner cannot be put to suffer, withotrt any fault on his part. Thercfore, this Court is of the vierv that preselrt impugned order is unsustainable, more particularly, since thc Cirarge Memo dated 73.11.2014 is itself contrary to the CCA Rules.

13. Further, as can be seen from the record, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative'lribunal, while admitting the matter on

02.03.2015, had passed an intcrim order, staying the de-nouo enquiry ordered in the impugned proceedings dated 27.01.2015, and almost ten years have passcd thus far.

14. The Hon'ble Apcx Court, io P.V. Mahodeudft t. Managlng Director, T.N. Housing Boardl, has categorically held that it would be prejudicial to an employee, if the authoritics proceed with departmentq'l proceedings at the distance of time. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "11. Under the circumstances, rlc are ofthe opinion that allowing the respondent to proceed further Eith the departmental proceedings at this distance of time l,ill bc very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher govcrnment ofncial undcr chargcs of corruption and disputed integrity s,ould cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the ofhcer concerned. 'lhe protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government cmployee should, therefore, be avoidcd not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest ald also in ' (2005) 6 SCC 636 PK, J W.P.(TR). No. 34OS of 2O 1 7 the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinar5' proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings rvould be much more thal the punishrnent. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceeCings, the appellant should not be made to suffer."

15. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Charge Memo pertains to the year 2O14 and more thax a decadc has passed since then. Hence, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.V. Mahadeuan (supra), on the ground of delay too, this Court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner.

16. In the light of the above madc discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present in-rpugned order dated 27.01.2015 is liable to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allorved setting aside the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.A1/ 1356/2014 dated 27.OL.2015, issued by respondent No. 1 . Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition (TR), shall stand closed. No costs. SD/- M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To \

1. The Commissioner and Director of Tribal Welfare, State of Telangana, DSS Bhavan, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

2. The Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare, ITDA Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 3. The Project Officer, ITDA, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. 4. The Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Departmenl, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

5. One CC to SRI M. BHARATH SHAH, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services-lll, High Court for the State of Telangana at 7. Two CD copies W {T Hyderabad. [OUT] HIGH COURT DATED:1 7l0gl2025 1$ fi,B tm () O * ':r, ORDER WP(TR).No.3405 of 2017 ALLOWTNG THE WR|T PETITTON (TR) WITHOUT COSTS Ufltnl & &' zr\t\r'o