The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK WRIT PETITION NO.24274 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: ".... declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in proc. No. C.E. (RRGN) / WGL/SA/A3/Court Case W.P.No.4t35/ 2Or7l2O24- 09l25BO dated 25.7.2025 communicated on 4.8.2025 imposing punishment of removal from service without conducting any enquiry and without there being any evidence in utter violation of Article 14, 16, 2l and 31 (2) of Constitution of India R/w. Rule 20 of T.S.C.S. & CCA Rules and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service with all consequential attendant benefits in the interest of justice...." 2\ Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for the respondents 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was considered for appointment as Office Subordinate in the Office of the Superintendent Engineer, I&CAD, Irrigation, Warangal, vide order dated 28.07.2O 16, on being sponsored from the Employment Exchange. The minimum qualification for the said post is VII Class and the petitioner has studied X class by attending classes regularly and passed in the year 2005 2 PK, J wp_24274_2025 Thereafter, he also completed Intermediate at A.p. Tribal welfare school, Khanetpur Mandal, warangar District, in the year 200s. Though he prosecuted Degree B.sc., he could not complete it. After his appointment as office Subordinate, the Superintendent Engineer, warangal, addressed a letter dated 02.0r.2016 to the District Education Officer for verification of VII class certificate, which was produced by the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has produced the VII class certificate issued in the year 2oo2 by Vivek vardhini Aided School, Narsampet, warangal District. The Head Master of the said Schoor sent a retter dated 0g.0g.2016 stating that the then correspondent of vivek vardhini Aided schoor, Narsampet, who issued the certificate in the year 2oo2, has died and further stated that the Admission Register and Nominal Register were eaten by white ants and were damaged. The said certificate issued b.v the then Head Master *as not intact forwarded by the Mandal Education officer (MEo) to the District Educational officer (DEo). Further, while sending the report dated 09.08.2016, the MEo has stated that the Admission Register in respect of the petitioner was not found in the Aided School, which finding is contrary to the letter dated 0g.0g.2016 acldressed by the ) ) - J PK, J wp_24274_2025 Head Master. Further, on 29.09.20]16, the DEo, Warangal, has addressed. a letter to the Superintend'ent Engineer stating that concerned records are not found in the school. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the District collector, who ultimately directed the competent authority to take action. In pursuance thereof, the DEO, Warangal, vide order dated o3.o2-2o17 has stated that the letter dated 29.09.2016 for VII Class Tabulation in the Admission Register are not found in Vivek Vardhani Aided School, Narsampet. Only on the said ground, without issuing any notice, the termination order dated 03-O2.2O17 was passed' challenging the same, petitioner has filed w.P.No.4135 of 2Ol7 wherein initialty this Court has granted interim orders of suspension on O8.O2.2O17 and thereafter the matter was finally disposed on 2g.o8.2)23 setting aside the termination order, however, liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed further after following due process of law. Consequently, on 2l'O2'2O24, a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner calling for his explanation as to why the major punishment of removal shall not be imposed upon him, for which, the petitioner has submitted a reply on 10.04 .2024 seeking 15 days further time to file the reply ..i:i 4 PK, J wp_24274_2025 and accordingly on 26.O4.2024 the petitioner has filed a detailed reply stating that issuance of show cause without conducting any enquiry under Rule 20 of Telangana State civil services (classification, control and Appeal) Rules, lggl (in short TSCS (ccA) Rules'), violates Articles 14, 16, 2l and 311 (2) of Constitution of India and further stated that the school authorities have also not denied the issuance of school certificate issued in favour of the petitioner for passing VII class and at no point of time, the schooi authorities made any statement that the certificate produced b-v the petitioner is fake or bogus. Therefore, the allegation tha.t the petitioner has produced a fake certificate is perverse and contrary to record.

3.1) Learned counsel has further contended that the respondents have issued Article of charges dated 20-.06.2024 under RuIe 20 of TSCS (ccA) Rules without citing the witnesses, for which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply on ro.or.2o24 denying the charges and requesting for dropping of proceedings. However, without considering the said explanation, an Enquiry officer was appointed on 17.o8.2o24 for conducting enquiry. Thereafter, the Enquiry officer has submitted the report on 17.r2.2o24 and the / / --Y 5 PK, J wp_24274_2025 same was communicated to the petitioner along with memo dated

08.0r.2025 wherein it was found that the petitioner has not established that his certificate is genuine. Except that, there is nothing in the enquiry report about gathering of the evidence and discussion on evidence as well as examination of author of the document. Based on the sarne, a Memo was issued. to the petitioner for submitting his replp for which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply stating that no enquiry was conducted as per Rule 20 of rSCS (ccA) Rules and the report does not contain any evidence for proving the charges, and that without examining the author of the document, the question of proving the charge does not arise. However, without considering any of the objections raised by the petitioner against the report of the Enquiry officer, the impugned order dated 2s.or.2o2s was passed imposing the major penalty of removal from service, in utter violation of Articles 14, 16,21 and 311 (2) of Constitution of India. It is further submitted that in view of the taw laid down by the Hon'b1e Supreme court in Roopsingh Negi a. h.tnjab Nortiono,l Bankt the question of treating the said document as proved does not arise since the author of the document is not examined and ' zoos 121 scc s7o (, PK, J wp_24274_2025 therefore the findings of the Enquiry officer are perverse and illegal. It is further contended that the Enquiry officer has not at all conducted any enquiry as required under the Rules but has only recorded the statement of the petitioner and shifted the burden of proof on the petitioner to establish that. the certificate produced by him is not false. [t is u,ell settled that the burden lies on the disciplinary authority to prove the charge ancl questioning of shifting the burden to the petitioner does not arise and on this ground also the entire disciplinary proceedings are liable to be declared as illegal.

3.21 Further, when the enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner, he raised valid objections against the sarne. However, while passing final orders, nowhere, the said objections were considered. In the absence of the same, the entire proceedings are illegal and arbitrary. It is further contended that the respondents have tailed to consider the issue of acquisition of higher qualification by the petitioner before his appointment i.e. X Class and Intermediate. As held by the Hon'lcle Supreme court, higher qualification is not a disqualification and once the petitioner possesses higher qualification, the action of the respondents in r f 7 7 PK, J wp-24274-2025 treatingthepetitionerasnotpossessingtheminimumqualification is nothing but illegalitY' Therefore, it is prayed' to allow the writ setting aside the impugned proceedings dated petition bY 25.07.2025- Reliance has been placed on Mohd' Riozul Usmo,n Goni u. District qnd Sessions Judge' Nagpurz and Oryx Fisheries Priuqte Limited u' union of Indias ' 4|Percontra,thelearnedGovernmentPleaderhassubmitted thatthepetitioner\^rasappointedasofficeSubordinateintermsof G.o.Ms.No.193 cAD (ser.A Dept), dated 27 -05.2016 and vide proceedings No'SE I rC lW ell ES I E2 I 1 131/M , dated 28.07 '2016' of Circle, Warangal, the the Superintending Engineer' Irrigation petitionerwasposted'totheOffrceoftheExecutiveEngineer' SpecialMinorlrrigationDivision,Eturnagaram(now SuperintendingEngineerCircle,Jangaon).Whileappointingthe candid'atesforofficeSubordinatepost,thecandidatescomeupfor selectionaSpertheirmeritinVllClass.Thepetitionerhas produced'theVllClassMarksMemoissuedbySriVivekaVardhani AidedSchool,Narsampet,forconsiderationofhisappointmentas Offrce Subordinate' Subsequently' the erstwhile Superintending 2 (2000) 2 SCC 606 s izotol t3 scc 427 8 PK, J wp_24274_2025 .i ! I I^l I '.1 Engineer, Irrigation circle, warangal, has called for the genuineness of the certificates. In repl-v, the DEO, Warangal, has informed that the VII Class Tabulation and Admission Register and concerned records of the petitioner were not found in Sri Viveka Vardhani Aided School, Narsampet. Hence, it was not confirmed by the DEO, Warangal. Therefore, the termination orders were issued on 03.02 .2017. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.4135 of 2Ol7 before this Court wherein initially interim orders dated 08.O2.2O17 were passed directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner. Finally, on 29.08.2023, the said writ petition was disposed of duly setting aside the impugned order dated O3.O2.2O17. However, libertl' was granted to the respondents to take appropriate steps by follor,t'ing due process by giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Warangal, has issued. proceedings dated 03.03.2017 reinstating the petitioner into service. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued by respondent No.2 on 21.02.2024 to the petitioner, for which, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 26.04.2024. Thereafter, arl Article of / I 9 PK, J wp_24274_2025 charge was issued vide proceedings dated 20.06.2024 by respondent No.2, for which also, the petitioner has submitted his explanation. As the said explanation was not convincing, an Enquiry oflicer was appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner and the Enquiry officer has submitted his Enquiry Report dated 07.12.2024 holding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. Thereafter, the Enquiry Report has been communicated to the petitioner on 08.0I.2o25 with a direction to submit his explanation. consequently, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 3o.o l.2o2s. Therefore, taking the letter addressed by the Head Master of the School as correct and as the explanation of the petitioner is not convincing and after careful examination of the matter, it is rightly decided by the authorities to impose the major punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5) This court has taken note of the submissions made by respective parties and perused the material on record. l0 PK, J wp-24274-2025 6) A perusal of the record discloses that admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Office Subordinate in the backlog vacancyofsTvideproceed'ingsNo.SE/IC/wg|lBS/E21131/M, dated 28.07.2016 by the Superintending Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Warangal, basing on the VII Class qualification. After of Watchman and Office cond.ucting interviews to the post Subordinates for SC_s & STs backlog vacancies conductec[ on

29.06.2016,thesaidauthorityono2.o7.20|6hasad'dresseda letter to the DEO, Warangal, for confirmation of genuineness and correctness of the certificate submitted by the petitioner as we'll as two others. Further, pursuant to the letter dated 15'07 '2O 16 o[ the DEO,theMEO,Narsampet,hasaddressedaletterdated 29,0S.2016totheDEo,Warangal,statingthatVIIClass Tabulation and Ad.mission Register and concerned records are not found in Vivek vardhani Aided school, Narsampet' consequently' theDEo,Y*"',gal,videletterd'ated29.09.2016lcommunicated the same to the Superintending Engineer. Basecl on the said letter dated29.og.2016,theSuperintendingEngineer.hasterminated theservicesofthepetitioneron03.02.2ol7.Aggrievedbythesaid termination order, the petitioner has filed W.P. No.4135 of 2ol7 __-7 II PK, J wp_24274_2025 and the same was allowed on 29 .03.2023 on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the termination order. However, in view of the liberty granted in the order dated 29,03.2023, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on

21.o2.2o24. on receipt of the explanation dated 2o.o4.2024 frorn the petitioner, an Article of charge dated 20.06.2024 is issued by respondent No.2, under Rule 20 of rscs (ccA) Rules, alleging that the DEo, warangal, could not confirm the genuineness of vII class certificate in respect of the petitioner herein. Further, no witnesses were also cited. 7) At this stage, this court feels it necessary to refer Rule 20 (3) (ii) of TSCS (CCA) Rules, which reads as under: "2o (31 where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government servant under this RuIe and Rute 2r, the Disciplinary Authority or the controlling Authority who is not designated as Disciplinar5r Authority and who is subordinate to the Appointing Authority can draw up or cause to be drawn up- (i) (ii) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall contain- (a) A statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confession made by the Government Servant. (b) A list of documents by which and a list of witness by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.,, t2 PK, J wp_24274-2025 i I i I I l 8) As per the Article of Charge issued by respondent No.2, the following charge has been framed against the petitiorler: "The DEO, Warangal could not confirm the genuineness 6f /rh certificate in respect of Ch.Anji Kumar. Further, the individual could not establish the fact that his certificate is genuine, rvhich leads to possibility of producing fake documents and amounts t-o misconduct. This need to be enquired." 9) A reading of charge makes it abundantl5z clear that charge against the petitioner is not definite in nature as ma.ndated under Rule 20 (3) (ii) of TSCS (CCA) Rules and issued ',r,ithout citing 'uvitnesses. Despite the same, the enquiry was ord"ered and the Enquiry Officer was appointed for conducting enquiry. Further, after conducting the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the report on 17.12.2024. While communicating the said report to the petitioner along with memo dated 08.01.2025, the petitioner '"vas directed to submit his representation, for which, the petitioner has submitted detailed objections dated 1O.O2.2O25 vvherein he has categorically stated as under "lt is further submitted that the notice of the Discipiinary authority that on 20.06.2024 after issuing article of charges by Chief Engineer Irrigation Warangal addressed a letter to District Educational Officer requesting him to examine the case and furnishing about the genuineness of the certificate produced by me based on record available. Thereafter <>n 27.06.2024, tLre District Educational Officer furnished a / / t3 PK, J wp-24274_2025 letter stating the school already furnished a memorandum of marks sheet issued by Head Master and also further provided that the corunon examinations for 7tr' class were abolished trorn 2OOT and common examinations were lastly conducted in the year 2oo7. Therefore, the records from 2oo2 are not available in the said office as a period of 17 years completed after abolition of common examinations of 7tr' class. In spite of the availability of the said recent communication by the DEO the same was not taken into the account for the reasons best known. In view of the sarfle since the enquiry was not conducted as per Rule 20 and the report does not contain any evidence for proving the charge and the documents of the authors were not examined, the question of treating the Enquiry report as valid does not arise. In view of my acquisition of qualifications of 1Ott class and intermediate at the time of getting emplo5rment as Oflice Subordinate which is higher than what is required i.e.,7tn class and in viewof my long experience from 2016 that is for last 9 years. I humbly request your kind authority to drop all further course of proceedings in the interest of justice. I suffered mentally and financially without any regularization of services and without any fixation of pay. Therefore, I request the kind authority Chief Engineer (lrrigation), Warangal to once again consider the entire issue based on the acquisition cif higher qualifications even as on the date of appointment and also since the certificate I produced cannot be treated as non- genuine, in view of the letter addressed by the Head Master of the school as correct, and I request to kindly drop the further action and regularize my services at the earliest." t4 PK, J wp_24274_2025 A perusal of the impugned termination order discloses that the said objections raised by the petitioner were not at all addressed by the respondent authorities. 10) In this context, it is relevant to state thzrt the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi's ccse (referred supra) has held as under: "14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a hnding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating off-rcer against all the accused by itself coul<l not be treated to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tenderecl the documents and did not prove the cont.ents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence." 11) Similarly, in M.V.Bijlani a. Union of Indiaa, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "25. ... Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyoncl all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-juclicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of mate'rials on record. 4 (2006) 5 SCC 88 / l5 PK, J wp_24274_2025 while doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmise and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations without which the delinquent oflicer had not 'been charged with." (emphasis added) L2) similarly, in Jo.sbrr singha. htnjab & sind Banks, the Hon'ble supreme court rerying on its earlier judgment in rvorri nd.er Mohan Arya v. tlnited India Insurance Co. Ltd..,a has held as under: "72. In a case of this nature, therefore, the High court shourd have applied its mind to the fact of .the matter with reference to the materials brought on record. It failed to do so.,, 13) In the instant case, admittedly, no witnesses were cited in the charge memo and no witnesses were examined during the enquiry. Further, the present impugned charge memo is issued shifting the burden of proof'on the petitioner contrary to Rule 20 ofrscs (ccA) Rules. That apart, the author of the crucial document was also not examined during the enquiry, which is whofly unjustifiable. \ 5 (2007) I SCC s66 6 (2006) 4 SCC 713 I6 PK, J wp_24274_2025 i I_l .l\l ! l4l For the afore-mentioned reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the above referred judgments, this court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable under the law and therefore liable to be set aside. 15) Accordingly, the impugned termination order dated 25.07.2025 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed '*,ith all consequential benefits and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service, forthwith. Miscelletneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed No costs SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary to Govt. lrrigation and Command Area Development, The State of Telangana, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad

2. The Chief Engineer, (lrrigation), Warangal, KC Colony Hanmakonda. 3. One CC to SRI P.V. RAIMANA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the State of Telangana.

5. Two CD Copies BN l,n BS llLlz HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 3 r', r= l.'{ WP.No.24274 of 2025 fl i, t;i; r.{t ,,, ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 15 t \