C. Ravindar Reddy v. '1 . State of Telangana

Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioner aDDroac hed the Court seekino praver as under: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus setting-aside the orders of penalty issued vide Procgs. No. AL/725/7016 dated t2.10.2017 and Proc. No. VS.II(1)/1620/2017 dared 24.10.2018 issued by the 3'0 and 2"d respondents respectively, as being arbitrary, illegal. unjust, opposed to principles ofjustice, contrary to provisions of Rule 20 & 21 of T.S. C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1991 and in violation ot Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for a consequential declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be considered and promoted as Senior Assistant on par with his juniors with all consequential beneflts in the interest of justice and to pass.-- "

3. The case of the Detitio er, in brief, as Der the ln he ffidavi n in suooort of the Drese nt Wrat Petition is as under: 2 SN,J w.P.No.:l 696 0f 2019 i) The petitioner was appointed as lunior Assistant through the Public Service Commission and pcs:ed in the Office of the Tahsildar, Pargi Mandal, Ranga Redc' District in August 2013. ii) A show cause notice dated 21.07.2015 wl; issued to the petitioner by the 3'd respondent allegir( that the petitioner had unauthorizedly attested pahanie:; for Survey Nos. 28711 and 287/2 of Parigi Village, recording he name of one K. Jagadeeswar Reddy as paftedar. Tf( petitioner submitted a detailed explanation to the said rhow cause notice denying the allegations stating that tht: petitioner's signature was forged and the relevant stamp di( not belong to the office. iii) Without considering the explanation subrr tted by the petitioner, the 3'd respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Ru r 20 of the T.S.C.S. (CC&A) Rules, 1991, and appointerl an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry nechanically and without proper opportunity for cross-exa 1 ination, and submitted the enquiry report dated 07.08.2017 . 3 sN.J W.P.No.25696 of 2019 iv) Basing on the said defective report, the 3'd respondent imposed a penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect vide proceedings No.AL/725/2016 dated L2.70 .20t7 , later mod ified by the 2nd respondent to withholding one increment without cumulative effect vide proceedings No.VS.U(1)/1620/2017 dated 24.10.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) Tha relewant n..rrtirrn nf the mnrraned order virlp oroceedinos No.A1l725l2016 dated 12.10.2017 issued by the respondent No.3-District Revenue Officer, Vikarabad District to the petitioner herein, is extracted hereu nd er: "Accordingly a show cause notice was issued to Sri. C. Ravinder Reddy, Junior Assistant to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for his mischievous and irresponsible attitude in performing his legitimate duties. Through the reference 3'd read above, the delinquent officer has submitted his explanation requesting to drop further action. Since the explanation was found not convincing, the Disciplinary Authority issued Articles of Charges in the reference 4th read above. The delinquent officer has submitted his explanation through the reference 5th read above, denying the charges and requested to drop the charges and to exonerate him from the disciplinary proceedings, 4 SN,J w.P.No.2 ! 696 of 2019 as he is an innocent. Through the reference (,r read above, the Tahsildar, Pargi has submitted remarl s that he never issued any instructions or orders to is iue or sign on the certified copies of Pahanies o' other documents. The Sub-Collector, Vikarabad was appoitt ed as Enquiry officer vide reference 7th read abo'r The Enquiry Officer has submitted his enquiry report through the reference 8th read above, stating -l at the Sri. C. Ravinder Reddy, Junior Assistant is cl€ rrly at fa u lt. On receiot of the En urrv Officer reo 9t and o the exDlanation submitted .! v the consideri delinouent officer with reference to charog s, it is established that, the delanouent Officer h,1 ; been oroven to have violat ed the rules and henc l Minor Penaltv of Withhol dtno(O 2I Annual _ Grade Increments without cumulative Effect is it tposed the then _ Junior on Sri. C. Ravander Reddv, Assista nt, Paroi Tahsildar offrce, D l rsently workino in the O /o Tahsildar, Naw aboet M; ndal." B) The relevant oortion of the order oari;ed bv the I lo.2 vide a Doellate authoritv i.e., res DOn oroceedinqs No.VS.II( 1)/ 62tJt20t7

24.1O.2O18, is extracted hereunder: "Heard the arguments and perused the r:cords. On perusa I of the records submitted by the T- lsildar, Pargi on 6.2.2014 issued certified copies in r(r: pect of Sy No.287 of Pargi village to Sri B.P.NarsimulL lut not to Sri Jagadeeshwar Reddy. The Tahsildar, P;r gi, has for the submitted the same and true copies of pahani€s years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2011. In view of the a ove. it is felt th a t there was a Drocedural laoses an d the aooel l,I1t was ) sN,J W,P.No.25696 of 2()l9 e v Ienient view is taken the Collector, Vikarabad i withholding two incremen h H and punishment Imposed by n his order Dt. 12.10.2017 of ts without cumulative effect is t h n f IS ssr A c c SI

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent, being aggrieved by the order vide proceedings No.At/725/2016 dated tZ.LO.2Ot7 issued by respondent No.3, which was passed solely on the basis of the enquiry report dated 07.08.20L7 submitted by the Enquiry Officer, Sub-Collector, Tandur Division, wherein a unilateral conclusion was arrived at alleging violation of rules, and imposing a minor penalty of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect, without considering the petitioner's explanation, and Respondent No.2, vide impugned proceedings No.VS.II(1)/1620/20t7 dated 24.10.20L8, observed that the petitioner was not direcfly involved in the process and that there were only procedural lapses, but however, while taking a lenient view, respondent No.2 reduced the punishment imposed by the Collector, Vikarabad, from withhording two annuar increments without 6 SN,J w.P.No.2:,( 96 of 2019 cumulative effect to withholding one annual lcrement without cumulative efFect.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of.tho petitioner contends that, having held that the petitioner was r ct directly involved in the procedural lapses, no punishmr: lt can be imposed against the petitioner. The impugned crler of the Znd respondent, withholding one incremett without cumulative effect issued by the 2nd respon<l :nt, dated 24.lO.2OlB is uncalled for, since there is a clear rbservation in the proceedings, dated 24.1O-2018 issued by tf e Appellate Authority i.e., the 2nd respondent that petitiorr )r was not directly involved in the process and there wer: procedural lapses.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of tll r petitioner' placing reliance on the report of the Reven L e Divisional Officer dated 13.02.2016 vide Lr. No.A31686/20 5, contends that the preliminary enquiry report clearly indi<.' tes that the petitioner was only required to be given a strict r rarning to be careful in the future and the report had a cle;r observation that the allegations leveled against the petlti() ter were not proved and that the actual violation was commit ed by Kavala 4W -;.' I, - 1 SN,J W.P.No.25696 of 2019 Srinivas and not the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 vide Proc. No.VS.II (r)/L620/2O17 dated 24.t0.2018 needs to be set aside.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I aooearino on behalf of the resoondents fairlv submits that the Detitioner was not directlv I rocess. Furth r n d romote en tor proceedinqs No.A2l3O85/ZOLA dated 29.04.2O19 of n h District Ma istrate Ran a Redd District a nd oosted to Vikarabad Distract, and is rAnl tI workin n l{rrdarrhrrl asS n R t t e matter m b r mt r n n No.2, i.e., the Director, Land Administration (Police), the Chief Commissioner of Land Office of Administration, tor reco sideration of the aDDeal preferred by the Detitioner under Rule 33(1xia) of the APCS (CC&A) Rules 1991 aqainst the orders of the Collector. Vikarabad District, vide oroceedinos No. ALt72st20L6 d ted 12.1O.2017. 8 SN,J W,P.No. z ;696 of 2019

9. Taking into consideration the fact as born: on record that the order impugned passed by the Dir::tor, Land Administration (Police), Office of the Chief Com r issioner of land Administration, Telangana State, Hydere I ad clearly indicates a finding in favour of the petition i- that the petitioner was not directly involved in the procerl rral lapses, and further taking into consideration the materi. I document filed by the petitioner particularly the enquiry rr port of the RDO, Chevella Vide file 43-686-2015 obtained urder RTI Act dated 15.12.20tG wherein a clear finding r:; arrived at paragraph No.51 of the said report indicatirl that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are not proved and fufther that the petitioner may be exonerated vith a strict warning to be careful in future, and that the act lal culprit is one Kavali Srinivas, this Court opines that the r ubject issue requires reconsideration by the respondent No 2 herein. A bare perusal of the order impugned vide P- )c. No.VS.II (l)/162012017 dated 24.10.2018 clearly indicat:s that upon perusal of the records it was clearly held tha - the certified copies were not issued in favour of Sri Jagar Reddy, the complainant and further it is clearly observ:d that the petitioner was not directly involved in the prr cess and as 9 sN,J W.P.No.25696 of 2019 such/ a conclusion was righfly arrived at by the appellate authority i.e., respondent No.2.

10. This Court opines that the punishment imposed i.e., withholding of one increment without cumulative effect, by reducing the earlier punishment imposed by the Collector, Vikarabad vide its order Procgs . No.At/72512016 dated

12.L0.2077 of withholding two increments without cumulative effect is admittedly without any reasoning and justification, and contrary to the Enquiry Report of the RDO, Chevella.

11. TAKI G INTO CON SIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, The writ oetition is allowed. The imouon .II 1 .2018 t62 a 1 i l0 SN,J W.P.No.2 ;696 of 2019 L the resoondent No.2 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent and the r..:sDondent No.2 ts di cted to reconsider the oetitioner under Rule 3 3 ( 1 t he aooeal o rr lferred bv )( ii) of the F,l ,cs (cc & the orc er of A) Rules. 1991 aqqrieved aoaanst resDonden No.3-the Collector of Vikarab r d District vide oroceedinqs dated 12.1O.2O17 in acc rdance to fn 1 ral iustice q an ooDortunitv of oersonal he:l'inq to the Detitioner, dulv considerino all theDleas to b: put forth conformi w bv orovidin rt nct t ( bv the oetitioner in addition to all the oleas rs pleaded in the oetitioner's aDDeal dated 24.1L.20t and Dass aoorooriate reasoned orders within a oeriorl of four(4) weeks from the date of receiot of a coov o! this order and dulv communicate the decision to the- petitioner. However. there shall be no ord er as to cost-< Miscellaneous petitions, Petition, shall stand closed. if r Qr!y, pea&nq / n lhls -Wril - //TRUE COPY// S SD/- I'. PONNA KRISHNA SI )TANT REGIST&AR'' -. To '1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, ta-i rt, T S. State of SECTION OFFICER I 3 4 5 6 SA Telangana at HYderabad,

2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Sp r cial Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana, Chirag Ali Lane, NamPallY, l'r r'derabad The District Collector, Vikarabad District, Vikarabad Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES- I' High Court for the i ate of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI oil"-cd to dnr ruAvRxawaot RAMESH, Advocate [o: JC] Two CD Copies ) EweI*sE- C.C, TODAY r(TiiE S l.q v 10 ,428 ?vfi * !.1 -,:$,2 !'." HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 ORDER WP.No.25696 of 2019 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WTHOUT COSTS. \ \o