High Court · 2025

Petition under A(icle 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to release full pension, gratuity and all others retiremental benefits including commutation of pension along with interest to the petitioner herein. :-r - -sq lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 preased to direct the respondents herein to rerease fu, pension, gratuity and a, other retiremental benefits incruding commutation of pension arong with interest to the petitioner herein perding disposal of the above writ petition_ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.R.MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.i to 3 & 5: Gp FOR SERVICES-I counsel for the Respondent No.4: sRr M.MURALT KRTSHNA, sc FoR AG WRIT PETITIO NNO: 20557 OF 2025 Between Daftu Panth, li/o Kalyan Rao,. Aged about 61 years, Retired Suoerintendino " ilffi;b;;.' ;v.""FiJi 'ii;:i;: Engineer, pubtic H-eatrh ..Mai"au i-r"k, H.No.8-7-55/815, Shirdisai ftag-or.frrfrin iiorO,'ill".tln""irram Cotony, Cenrral Nagarjuna Sagar Road, nyUerioa'a_soo 0i9.-' "-"""-, AND ...PETITIONER

1. 2 The State of T elangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Metropotitan Area and Urban Devetopm ent ( H M D-A I i rils) bept., S"iretr-rtril irvlilrlE"o - soo o 22 The Enqineer-'n-Chief. public Health Dept., Govemment ol Telangana, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad-500 004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Artic{e 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances staterr in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a v'rit, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of Writ of certiorari issuing rure nisi ca*ing for the records pertaining to the G.O.Ms.No.154 dt.3Ot6t2O2S and the consequentiat proceedings in G.o.Rt.No.312 dt.3ot6t2ozs issued by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired irr support of the petition, the High court may be preased t<.r suspendtheoper.ationoftheimpugnedproceedingsinG.o.lr/Is.No.154 dt.3ol6t2o25 and the consequential proceedings in G.O.Rt.No.312 dt-3o1612025 issued by the 1st respondent herein pending disposal of the above writ petition. IA NO :2OF 2O25 Between: '1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Secretary, Ivletropolitan Ale^1and Urban ' D;;"dp;";t (HvroA tiniitsl bepi., Secretariat, Hvderabad-5oo o22' 2, The Enqineer-in.Chief, Public Health Dept., Government of Telangana, A.C. GuardslHYderabad-500 004. ...PETITIONERS AND Dattu Panth, S/o Kalyan Rao, Aged about 61 years'. Retired Suoerintendinq Enoineer. Public Health, rtr"JitlYi"xl nvoelau'at F:/o Plot No'15' H'No'B-7- -t',tri^ Coad, Hastinapuram colonv' central ;;i'dE:' sh?iili"'ili;.6ii, trtigarJuna Sagar Road,Hyderabad-500 079 ...RESPONDENT PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt.2g-O7 -2025 in WP No 20557 of 2025 and dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.R'MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVtcES-l The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITIO N Nos, 1 9967 and 20557 oF 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since th,: lis in both these writ petitions is inter se related r.vith each oth<:r, they are taken up together and being disposed of by this common order 2) Heard S;ri J.R.fuIanohar Rao, learned counsei for the petitioner. ai-ld learned Government pleacler for Serwices-l appearing for thc respondents. 3) Brief facts cf the casc are that the pctitioner .rzas initiaily appointed as lzlunicipal Assistalrt Er,gineer by way of direcl recruitment atter his narne was dur),. sponsorcd thrcugh Employme.t E>;cha.ge vide procce.Cings dated 2g.OS.l9g7. Later, his services \r,()re converted as Assistant Executi'e Engineer on 16- 10. 1993. S,bsequently, he rvas prornoted as Deputv Executive Engineer ir-r the year 2003, as Exccutive Engineer in the year 2014 a,d as Superintending Engineer in the year 21g. FlLrther, rvhile he rvas working as Deputy Executi-.,c E,gineer, a criminal case was registerecl zrgainst him aileging that he did not obtain prior_ 2 the petitioner, perrnlsslOn or intimated to the Department about acquiri;rg of properties ancl also he rvas keilt under suspension vide proceedings CaLed 29.11-2OO7 ' Thereafter, on a representation being made by he was reinstated' into service vide Government 18.08.2008. Further, the Govcrnment has issued Memo dated Char-ge Memo vide G'O Ms'No'681' Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department' dated 25'li.'2OOg alleging that he committed grave misconduct as he neither obtained permission ncr intimated to the Department about acquiring of movable and immovablc properties and also failed to submit proforma I to VI property statements to the Department during his cntire service' except for the year 1989 ' to which' the petitioner has also submitted tris explanation' Though the charge memo was issued on 25.11.20O9, no enquiry was conducted till 2017' As such' the petitioner has filed W'P'No' 1642 | of 20 17 wherein initially this Hon'ble Court gralted interim orders dated 05'06'2017' as per which, the petitioner was promoted as Superintending Engineer' ttris Court has disposed of the said writ Thereafter, oa 07 'O3 '2025 ' petition directing the respondents to complete the enquiry within a period of one month thereof' As the respondents failed to conclude -, --j;:'.--<q.t; - n 3 the enquiry .,,rithin the said period, petitioner filed an I.A. in the said writ petition arld on 2g.O4.2O25, the said LA. was ordered directing the respondents to conclude the enquiry by O2.OT.2O2S making it clear that if the enqurry is not completed by the said date, the subject charge memo dated 25.11.2009 stands dropped against the petitioner. Further, another charge memo G.O.RI.No.570, dated .t6.Og.2O23, was also issued to the petitioner and he also submitted his explanation to the same. Though the trnquiry Office:- has conducted enquiry and submitted his report, no further prc,ceedings took place in that regard. During the interregnum pt:riod i.e. on 31.03.2025, the petitioner has retired from service. Thereafter, the petitioner was sanctioned only provrsronal perLsion stating that tlvo charge memo are pending agarnst him. Therefore, seeking to direct the release full pt:nsion, gratuity ald all other petitioner has hled W.p. No. L9962 of 2025. retiral benefits, respondents to

3.1) Further, respondent No.1 has issued G.O.Ms.No. 1S4, dated 30.06.2025 sal,:tioning initiation of departraental enquiry against the petitioner by invoking Rule 9 cf Telangaaa Revised pension 4 Rules, 198O. Aggrieved by, the same; petitioner has frled W.P. No.2O557 of2025' 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner iontends ' that the impugned G.O.lriIs.No'154, dated 30'O6'2025 and issued u'ithout jurisdiction' Eurther' on the same day' the <:h"tg: memo alleging that thc respondents have a'lso islued ". petitioner has acquired disproportionat6 assets' which allegations are similar to earlier charge memo dated 25'IL'2OO9 i'e' the petitioner tras acquired disproportionate as:ets during the period from D'ecemb er, 2OO4, b 2a '\O'2OO7" Learired counsel contends that as- the 'petitioner' has already retired from servrce on 3 1.03.2025 itself, no departmental proceedings can be initiated against him aJter his retirement except under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of Telangana Revised Pension Rules ' 1980' karned counsel further contends that accord'ing to the allegations in the charge memo, the petitioner has acquired the disproportionate assets between December, 2004 and 2007 whereas the impugned charge memo dated 30 '06 '2025 is issued in respect of the allegations pertaining to the period more than 18 years ago' Therefore' as per Rule 9 (2) (ii) of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules' 1980' a 5 departmental proceedings cannot be issued in respect of any event which took pi,ace more than 4 years before such initiation. Further, the lovernment has issued G.O.Ms.No.6B0, dated 25.11.2009, orCering sanction of prosecution with regard to a-llegations of accusation of disproportionate assets. ln pursuarce thereof, the Government has rrled a criminar case, in c.c. No. 14/201O befrrre the I Additional Special Judge for SpE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad. However, the Government has ordered for withdrawal of said prosecution. Accordingly, the criminal case was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.06.2013. However, for the reasons best known t. the respondents, th.y have not initiated departmental prr>ceedings immediately thereafter. As such, after retirement of the petitioner, the respondents cannot initiate Thus, the learned counsel contends that initiation of proceedings against the petitioner vide dated 30.06.2025, is without jurisdiction and 9 (21 (tl) of Telangana Revised pension Rules the learned counsel prays to set aside the rmpugned G.O.Ms.No.l54 dated 30.06.2025 and the consequential

1980. Therefore, contrary to Rule G.O.Ms.No. 154, departmental proceedings. 6 ( proceedings 1n G.O.Rt.No:.312, dated 30.06.2025 issuid by respondent No. 1. 5) Fer contra, the leamed Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that on cre<iible info-rmation received from DSP, ACB, Hyderabad Range, in Radio message, dated 21. ll.2OO7 , that the petitioner was in possession .of .. assets rvhich are disproportionate to the known sources of his income, a case in crirnc No.26/ACB-HR/2007 was registered on 19.ll.2OO7 for the offence punishable under Section 13 . (2) read with 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Co.rmption'Act, 1988. Thefeaftei, based on the final re port of the Director General of ACB, the Government has accorded sanction to then Deputy Executive Engineer for prosecution of the pctitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.68O, MA & UD (Vig.I(2)) Dcpt., dated 25.11.2009. Consequently, departmental proceedings nere initiated and Article of Charges u'ere issued vide G.O.Ms.No-681, MA & UD (Vig.I (2)) Deptt., dated 25.11.2009, to the petitioner. Subsequently, as per the order dated' 23.02 -2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision Case No.2173 12023, tl:e State was permitted to withd raw the Prosecution launched against the petitioner in C.C. No. 14 of 2010. Accordingly, the Additional -\ 'f 7 Special Judge for Triar of spE & ACB cases, Hyderabad, vide order dated lO .O3.2(t23 permitted u,ithdrawa-l of the prosecution. Thereafter, the I)irector General, ACB, Hyderabad, vide ietter dated O4.OI.2O24 has furnished draft Article of Charges to then Deputy Executive Engineer O/o.the Deputy Commissioner, L.B.Nagar circle, GHMC, Fl.R. District, for initiation of departmental action against the potitioner on the allegation of possession of disproportionate assets to the known sources o[ his income, for taking further ztction in the matter, in view of withdrawal of prosecution. Acrcordingly, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No. 152, MA & UD (Vig.Il Dept., dated 30.O6.2025, has issued sanction order as requirecl under sub_clause (1) of clause (b) of sub rule (2) of Rule 9 of Telangana Revised pension Rules, 1980, to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner, who retired on 3I.O3.2O25 on at.taining the age of superannuation. Hence, the revised charges cr>me under the purview of sub_rule 6(a) of Rule 9 of Telangana Revised pension Rules, 198O, and it cannot be made applicable to RuI,: 9 (2) (b) (ii) of Revised pension Rules, 1980. Therefore, the leatned Government pleader contends that there are no merits in the u,rit petition ald prayed to dismiss the same. 8 ( 6) This Court' has taken ' note ,of the submissi6n5 .'qrade b! rcspective counscl and pemsed the record 7\ As can be seen from the record, whiie the petitioner was '"vorking as Deputy Executive Engineer, admittcdly, a erirninal case - was registered by thc ACB authorities in crime No.26/ACB- HR/2OO7 for the oflence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; dated 19.1i.20O7, on the g.or.rd that he possessed disproportionate assets to the known sources of his income. Thereafter, the Goveinment has accord.ed sanction for prosecution vide G.O.RI.No.68O, MA & UD (Vie.I (2)) Deptt., dated 25.112009, and also initiated departmerttal proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.681, l\4A & UD (Vig.I {2}) Deptt., dated 25 .lI .2OOg. However, at the request of the petitioner, the Government vide Memo No.24405/Vi g.l(2ll2oo7, dated

28.05.2010, has decided to conduct departmental enquiry on the aliegation of possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income against the petitioner while withdrawing the prosecution salctioned against the petitioner. Para-4 of the Memo dated 28.05.2010 is reproduced hereunder for better understanding: -i'.lirl'-Ii a|.. , .<!j.\-.a.-. 9 "Goyernment after careful examination of the matter, and having regard to tht: circumstances of the case have decided to conduct deparLmental enquiry on thc allegation of possession of asscts disproportiona.te to the known sources of income aga-inst Sri Dattu Panth, former)y Deputy Executive Engineer, L.B. Nagar Municipality, by withdrawing prosecution. Accordingly, Government hereby order to withdraw tlle prosecution ordered vide reference 2"d cited al1d to conduct departrnental enquiry agair1st Sri Dattu panth, formerly Deputy Executive Engineer, L,B. Nagar Municipality, Gratcr Hyderabad Municipai Corporation, Hyderabad.,, Though the saicl proceedings were issued in the year 2070, admittedly, the respondents have not initiated departmental proceedings an(l not issued Article of Charge till the date of retirement of the petitioner on 3 1.03.2025. However, basing on the memo dated 28.0S.2O 10, after a lapse of 15 years, the present depa_rtmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner that too after his retirement vide impugned G.O.Rt.No.154, dated MA & UD (Vig.l) Department, dared 30.06.2025. B) Here, it is relevant to state that in p.V. Mahqdevrrn u. Managing Director, T.N. Housing Boardt, the Honbie Supreme Court has held that o otuing the respond.ent to proceed. furtLrer uith the departmentttl proceed-ings at this d_tstance of time wiU be uery ' (2OOs) 6 SCC 636 t0 (t,, prejudicial to the appellant. I{eeping a, higher go7emment offi.cia! unCer charEes oJ- corntption and. disputed. integitg utotuld cause unbearable nter-tal agong and cftstress to th.e officiat corrcerned. The protracted disciplinary enqu-iry ogainst o gouenTment enplogee ,' shttuld, therefore, be auoided not onlg in the interests of the gouernment ernployee but in public interest and. also in the interests of inspiring mnftdence in the minds of the gouernment employees. At thi"s stdge, it is necessary to drau-t the curtain and- to put an end. to the enquirg. TLrc appeltant had alreadg suffered enough and more on account cf tLrc disciplinana proceedings. As a matter of fact, the menta.l agony and sulferings of th-e appellant- due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be ntuch more thant th.e punishment. For the mi.stakes conmitted bg the. d-epartment in the procedure for initiating the di.sciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be mad.e to suffer. 9) Further, the contention of the respondcnts is that orders in question were issued under sub-ru1e (6) (a) of Rule 9 of Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980. To adjudicate upon ,this, it is necessary to refer G.O.Ms.No.154, dated 30.06.2025, and G.O.Rt.No.312, MA & UD (Vig.I) Department, dated 3O.06.2025.

9.1) Relevant portion of the 30-06.2025, reads as under: tmpugned G.O.Ms.No. 154, dated "Govcrnment, after careful examination of the matter hereby accord sanction under sub_c.[ause (l) of clause (b) of sub_rule (2) of Rute_9 of the Telangana Revised pension Rules, l9g0 to iniLiate departmental proceedings zgainst Sri Dattu panth, the then Deputy Executive Engineer (now Retd) o/o. the Deputy commissioner, L.B. Nagar circle, Greater tlyderabad Municipal Corporation, R.R. District-,,

9.21 Relevant portion of G.O.Rr.No.312, MA & UD (Vig.l) Department, dal.ed 30,06.2025, is also necessary to be reproduced hereunder: "4- In pursuance to the report 5,h read above, orders issued in tlle G.O. 6th read a5oye and. in,accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 20 of tht: Telangara civ services (classification, control and Appeal) Rules, i99l r/w Rule 9(2) of Telangana Srate Revised pension Rules, 198o it is proposed to hord an enquiry against sri Dattu panth, the then Deputy Executive Engineer, O/o.the Deputy Comrnissioner, L,B. Nagar Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, R.R. District, on the ,:llegation of possession of assets d.isproportionate to ttle known sources of income.,,

9.3) From the above, it is clear that the authorities have taken to the shelter under Rule 9 (2) (b) of relangana Revised pension Rules, 1980, for initiating action against the petitioner. When that be so, now the rt>spondents calnot improve their case by way of t2 (..) counter referriirg to Rule 9 (6)(a) of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, in view of the larv laicl down by t" Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Gill w. Chief Election Commissioner2 whercin it is held tlaat tuhen a statutory functionary mokes an order based on certain grounds, its ualiditg must be judged by tLe reasons so mcnlioncd and cannol be supplernented b,g .fresh reo.sons in the shape of offldauit or othenuise. OtheruLise, an order bad in the beginning may, bg Lhe time it cornes to Court on account of a challenge, get uaLidated bg odditionol grourtds later brought out. 10) .Further, it is also relcvant to state that by virtue of the order dated O2,05.2O25 passed by the learned Single Judgi,of this Court in I.A. No.1 of 2O25 in W.P. No.16421 of 2017, the eariier Charge Merno issued under G.O.Ms.No.68 1, dated 25-11.2OO9 is deemed to have been dropped against the pctitioner. 11) For the afore-mentioncd reasons, the impu-gned charge memo dated 30.06.2O25 is not sustainable under the law and therefore liable to be set aside. , (1978) I SCC 405 I] 12) Accordingty, Writ petition No.20557 of 2O2S is allorved and the impugned (i.O.Ms.No. 154, dated MA & UD (Vig.l) Deparrment, datecl 3O.06.2025, as well aS G.O.Rt.No.312, MA Department, da:ed 3O.O6.2 O2S, arc set aside. & UD (vig.t) 13) Conseque,tly, Writ petition No. 19967 of 2O2S is also aliorved directing the respondents to release full pension, gratuity and other retrial benelits to the petitioner, as expeditiousll. as possible, prcferably, within a period of eight weeks from the clate of receipt of a copy of this orrler. Miscellaleous petitions pending, if any, in this ,"vrit petition shall stald closed No costs. .a \ To, //TRUE COPYII ,='3,tfi'*?3,SFiR G SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 6

8. I BSR BS The. Secretary, lvletropolitan Area and Urban Devel D e p t., Secretdii rt, riviLia Lao, srrt" ;ii il;#;b=d"f#" " Finance Department, secretariat, Hyderabad, state "1"; t ( H rt/l DA ti m its ) J#"",J[iB3li:r"5e^tErY' Health Dept ' Government of relangana, A.c. The E ng ine er-in -Ch ief . put Guards, Hyderabad-Sg0 oo:lic The Accountant General, Telangana State, Saifabad, Hyderabad. The Joint Director, pension payment Office, tVl.J.Road, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI J.R.MANOHAR RAO, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRt tvt.MURALt KR|SHNA, SC FOR AG [OPUC] Iy;":r?:Jif,i.FoR SERVICES-|, Hish cou( ror the State or rerangana at Twt Ctr ger;". \s. HIGH COURT DATED: 26t09tZO2S .iE t COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.19967 and 2OSS7 of 20ZS -t'E () (.) I I Nr' 1 4 0itT .at:-....r, "+.-:l- t.1-1," ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS to lN' I ,