WRIT PETITION NO: 35534 OF 2022 v. unconstitutional violative of statutory rules and violative of principles of

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circr r rstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may :: pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings 1710312022 issued by the respond: rt No.3 in the capacity of respondent No.2. I.A.NO:2 OF 2022 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( i tumstances slated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m I , be pleased to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to produce the records pertair ing to the impugned proceedings dated 1 7 10312022. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SAN(il ll, SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SAI.I ;HI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR EDUCATIT )N Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.3553 of 2022 DATE: 02.12.2025 BETWEEN: Y. Devadas Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Govt., Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .... respondents ORDER Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, Iearned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, learned Government pteader for Education appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l and 2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. 2 sN,l W.P I o.3s534 of 2022 2 The oetitioner aooroached t e Court s ekinq as under: "......to call for the records relating to an(l with Memo No. 2335/CE/Al/2O2O dated 27-04-21 aside the same holding it absolutely illegal, at1 u nconstitu tion a I violative of statutory rules and principles of natural justice and consequently Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to dtt consequential benefits in the interest of justice." connected 22 and set itrary and ,iolative of clirect the y with all

3. The case of the oetitioner in briel' as averments made in the affidavit file bv the ,etation ers ln e suDpo rt of the oresent writ etition is as undll rr: i) The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lr::l-urer in 1991. While the petitioner was working in Government I egree College, Godavarikhani, the petitioner's name was prl rosed for full additional charge as Principal upon the retir lment of the incumbent in May 2020. ii) As the petitioner was not inclined to I petitioner requested the authorities not to assi(l old the post, r FAC Principal duties. Instead of considering the petitioner ! Respondents transferred the petitioner to request, the L.uxettipet on disciplinary grounds. The petitioner's objection tc :he transfer led to suspension and initiation of disciplinary procee( ings. 3 sN,J W.P.No.35534 of 2022 iii) Subsequently, after an inquiry, a punishment of censure was imposed and suspension was revoked. Despite his explanation and representation, the disciplinary authority, imposed the major penalty oF compulsory retirement on

17.03.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PE RUSED THE RECORD:- (A) The r leva nt Dort ron of the imouqned order Vide File No.CCE-SE R3/ALGS/9/ 2020-ALGS ated 17.03 .2022 issu ed bv the resoondent No.3- he Commissi ner of Colleoiate Education Telanoana, Hvderabad a ardinq maior enaltv of comoulsorv retarement of servace under ) Rules. 19 1in resoect of the Rule 9 of TSCS(CC Detitaoner herein is xtracted her u nder: "...In the reterence 7th read above, as per the procedure laid down in TS (CC&A) Rules, 1991, a copy of the Enquiry Report was communicated to Sri Y.Devadas, Lecturer in physics (under suspension) Government Degree College, Luxettipet, Mancherial District with a direction to submit explanation in stipulated time if any. 4 SN,J w.P I 0.35534 of 2022 In the reference 8rh read above Sri Y.D: Lecturer in Physics (under suspension) Gove't Degree College, Luxettipet, Mancherial Distri submitted his final written representation' Tl1 representation submitted by the individual is foi z adas, -r ment t has : flnal rd not satisfactorY. After going through the above representation of Sri Y. Devadas, Lecturer in (under suspension) Government Degree ( Luxettipet, Mancherial District and also the I Report of -loint Director O/o the CCE, T.S Hyc (reference 5tn read above) and after examination of the whole matter the und'l concludes that the charge framed against Devadas, Lecturer In Physics (under susl Government Degree College, Luxettipet. lvl. I District has been proved. vritten 'hysics o llege, nq u iry :ra b ad ca refu I sig n ed Sri Y. rnsion) r:h e ria I in view of the above circumstanc€ Commissioner of Collegiate Educatlon, Tt: State, Hyderabad being the disciplinary autlr exercise of the powers vested impose retirem: service" Under Rule 9 of TSCS (CC&A) Rules, respect of Sri Y.Devadas, Lecturer in Physic:; suspension) Government Degree Colleqe, Le> Mancherial District. The period of absence {r previous reinstatement order will be treated non with break in service. ;, the r nga na rrity in ll: From 991 in (under e ttipet, rm the rs d ies The Luxatipet, Principal, Government Degree )ollege, Mancherial District is reque; erd to 5 SN,J W.P.No.35534 of 2O22 communicate the proceedings to the Incumbent immediately and also directed to make necessary entries in the Service Register of the Incumbent and submit the compliance to this olfice. The receipt of this proceeding - should be acknowledged by return post. " B) The relevant Dortion i.e.. DaraqraDh Nos. and 10 of the emo Vide Memo No.2335/CE lALl2 20 dated 27- O4.2O22 issued bv the resDondent No.1-the Secretarv toGovernment, Hioher Education Deoartment is extracted hereund er: "9. Vide reference 7th cited, the CCE has informed that in spite of not joining to duty at Government Degree College, Luxettipet, Mancherial District, Sri Y.Devadas, in his representation dated 15.02.2021 has again requested to post him in the existing vacancy in Kakatiya Government Degree College, Hanmakonda on spousal grounds. The CCE, Hyderabad has conducted an enquiry and in the Enquiry report the charges framed against the individual are held proved A ma or enalw of Comoulsorv Retirement from se ice under ule 9 of 1991 w imoosed in resDect of Sri Y. Devad s, Lectu rer in Phvsics (under Susoen sion), GDC. Luxett et, Mancherial District. c&A R I

10. Government have examined the appeals of the petitioner in the reference 1st cited w.r.to remarks offered by the CCE and orders of Hon'ble High Court and observe that the appeals 6 SN,J w.P. \ ).35534 of 2022 do not merit consideration and therefore ^:reby stand rejected. " DISCU SSION AN D CONCLU ION:

5. Learned Senior Desiqn ted Cou sel it loeartno on behalf of the oeti tioner mai nlv outs forth t re followtno submissions: 5.1 The impugned order dated 17.03.202: issued by respondent No.3 is in clear violation of the princil'les of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under the TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991.

5.2 Based on the preliminary enquiry report, :he impugned order was passed without examining any wi'- resses in the departmental proceedings, and a unilateral r: rnclusion was arrived at against the petitioner, holding that t re petitioner's conduct amounted to dereliction of duty and ind i ;cipline on the ground that the petitioner did not join duty and remained absent, without any clear finding that the petiti rner's absence was deliberate or wanton. Ba donth e aforesaid su missio ns, I 1 arned Senior Des o nated Cou se aooearr no on beh alf of - he petitioner 7 SN,J W.P.No.35534 of 2022 contended that the writ oet tion needs to be allowed as Praved for.

6. A bare perusal of the relevant rules, Darticularlv Rule 9 of the Classification, Control and ADp€al Rules, indicates that comoulsorv retirement i Dosed uoon the oetitioner is a maior Denaltv. The oro edure for imoosinq maior e alties is dealt with under Rules 2O A 9 c 1 A and 10(B) of the said Rules, which are extracted hereu nder: "20(3)(i)The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge (ii) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge, which shall conta in - (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. (9)(a) The Presenting Officer and Government and Servant shall appear before the Government Inquiring Authority on the date fixed under sub-rule (8). 8 SN,., W.I'. Yo.35534 of 2022 (c) The Inquiring Authority shall cal upon the Government Servant whether he admits the ge I tineness of any of the documents copies of which I ave been furnished to him and rf he admits the ger r ineness of any document it may be taken as evidence 'r thout any proof by the concerned witness. (10)(a) On the dates fixed for re,: rrding the evidence, the oral and documentary evidence ll which the articles of charges are proposed to be provr: I shall be produced by or on behalf of the Disciplinary Au l ority. (b) The evidence shall be recorded as far ls possible day-to-day basis till the evidence on blralf of the Disciplinary Authority is completed."

7. The Apex Court iudqment dated 15.02._2O12 reoorted in 2012 (3) SCC 178, in "KRUSHNAKANT PARMAR v I UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER", in oarticrll ar. the paras 16to 25. observed as under:

16. The questaon whether 'unauthori sed absence from duty' amounts to failure of devoti )n to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Governrl tent servant cannot be decided without deciding :he question whether absence is willful or because r 'f compelling circumstances, L7. If the absence is the result () compelling circumstances under which it was no' possable to report or perform duty, such absence c. nnot be held to be willfu!.

18. Absence from duty without any appl ( ation or prior permission may amount to unauthorised t:sence, but it does not always mean willful. There m;r' be different 9 sN.J W.P.No.35534 of 2()22 eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospita lisation, etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to duty or behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. 19. In a Departmental proceeding, if allegation of unauthorised absence from duty is made, the disciplinary authority is required to prove that the absence is willful, in absence of such finding, the absence will not amount to misconduct.

20. In the present case the Inquiry Officer on appreciation oF evidence though held that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from duty but failed to hold the absence is willful; the disciplinary authority as also the Appellate Authority, failed to appreciate the same and wrongly held the appellant guilty.

21. The question relating to jurisdiction of the Court in judicial review in a Departmental proceeding fell for consideration before this Court in M.B. Biilani vs. Union of India and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 wherein this Court held: "It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi- criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial l.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. 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 surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent olficer had not been charged with." t0 SN,J W.l, t1o.35534 of 2022

22. In the present case, the disciplinary arrl prove that the absence from duty was v finding has been given by the Inquiry Appellate Authority. Though the appellarrr specific defence that he was prevented fronr by Shri P. Venkateswarlu, DCIO, Palanpur him to sign the attendance register and l record 11 defence exhibits in support of lr he was prevented to sign the attendanc< includes his letter dated 3rd October, 19!) Shri K.P. Jain, lD, SIB, Ahmedabad, STD/PCO office of Telephone calls dated 2! 1995, etc. but such defence and evidenc( and on the basis oF irrelevant fact and surfil Officer held the appellant guilty. 23. Mr. P. Venkateswarlu. DCIO, Palanpur complainant and against whom appellan refused to appear before the Inquiry Ofli service of summons. Two other witnesses, : Shri L.N. Thakkar made no statemerl appellant, and one of them stated the knowledge about absence of the appellarr aForesaid evidence, on the basis of conjectures, the Inquiry Officer held the ch,l hority failed to illfu l, no such Itfficer or the had taken a attending duty ruho prevented so brought on s defence that register, th is iaddressed to receipts from th September, were ig nored ;es the Inquiry who was the alleged bias :er in spite of ;h ri Jivrani and against the t he had no .Ignoring the surmises and 'ge proved.

24. Though the aforesaid facts noticed t1 the Appellate Authority but ignoring such facts givin! reference of extraneous allegations which were not t t e part of the charge, dismissed the appeal with follow r g uncalled for observation: "The appellant even avoided the basic training required for the job and asked JAD Ahmedabad to send all the training papers for hi:; training at IB Training School, Shivpuri (Madhya F -adesh) to his residence at Ahmedabad. 'An untrair ed officer is of no worth to the department'."

25. In the result, the appeal is allowed. l-he impugned orders of dismissal passed by disciplir ary authority, affirmed by the Appellate Authority; Centrtr Administrative Tribunal and High Court are set aside. The l lpellant stands reinstated. Taking into consideration tht: fact that ihe 1l SN,J W.P.No.35534 of 2022 Charged Officer has suffered a lot since the proceeding was drawn in 1996 for absence from duty for a certain period, we are not remitting the proceeding to the disciplinary authority for any further action. Further, keeping in view the fact that the appellant has not worked for a long time we direct that the appellant be paid 50% of the back wages but there shall be no order as to costs. 8 In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court in its iu qment. dated 28.O1.2O16 in W.P.No.38O57 of 2015 at the relevant oortion at Dara No.11, observed aS under: The department did not sanction leave or refer him to the Medical Board for examination. Inasmuch as the leave application dt: 26.11.2009 was within the period of one year, upon which no order of either sanctioning or refusing was passed, the invocation of drastic provision of F.R 18-A and ordering deemed resignation is not legally valid. In the decision reported in Krushnakant B. Parmar vs. Union of India and another (AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 42) submitted by learned counsel for respondent, Hon'ble Aoex Court held that in a Departmental proceeding, if alleoation of unauthorized ve that the abs n the disci I ina h rl such findino, the absence will not amount to misconduct. nce from wt h ot alw m nwt permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it f There may be different eventualities due to which an employee may abstain from duty, including compelling circumstances beyond his control like illness, accident, hospita lization. etc., but in such case the employee cannot be held guilty of failure oF devotion to duty or his behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. The above decislon squarely applles to the instant case. Here, the petitioner failed to establish firstlv that the respondent absent exceedino one vear remained una uthori sedt without aoolvinq for leave and €ondlv, such =hcona e was wilf t. Th nrrrih^rizad imouoned order oassed under G.O.Ms.No.122 General rtment dt: O1.O5.2014 was Administration OP.V ) De ( riohtlv set aside bv the Tribunal Wes ee no reason to tnterfer e with the said order- r l2 SN,J W.P. 10.35534 of 2022

9. A bare perusal of the record indicates that admittedly as borne on record, the procedure contemplated rnd mandated under the TSCS (CC&A) Rules, 1991 (referred tr> and extracted above) had not been followed in the present cas: nor there is a clear finding arrived at by the disciplinary Autl ority that the absence of the petitioner had been deliberate, lv lful or wanton and the same had been held to be bad and ille(t rl by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court in he judgments referred to and extracted above.

10. Learned Assistant Gove rnment Pleader _ airlv submits that the orocedure contemolated for imoo ;inq a m aror oenaltv under the TSCS (CC&A) ules, 1991 _ rdmittedlv as borne on record. had not been followed in th i ; case.

11. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances c f the case, b) The submissions made by the le:rr ned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner an d the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-.t appearing on behalf of the respondents. l3 SN,J w,P.No.35534 ot 2022 c) The contents of the impugned proceedings vide File No.CCE-SER3/ALGS/9/ZO2O-ALGS dated 1,7.o3.2O22 issued by the respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted above), d) The fact that the impugned order had been passed without conducting enquiry as per the mandatory procedure as laid down under Rules 20, 9(A), 9(C), 1O(A) and 1O(B) of the TSCS(CC &A) Rules, 1991 (referred to and extracted above), e) The fact as borne on record that the disciplinary authority had come to an unilatera! conclusion that the petitioner's absence was willful and deliberate unilaterally and imposed the major penalty of compulsory retarement, which is in clear violation of the principles of naturat justice, f) The observations in the judgments of the Apex Court and Division Bench of this Court (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- .) 2012 (3) SCC 178 l4 SN,J W.P. 10.35534 of 2022 ii) Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated

28.O1.2016 in W.P.No.38O57 of 2O15 g) The discussion and conclusion ali arrived at paragraph Nos.5 to 1O of the present order, The writ oetition is allowed. The im l,uoned order vide Fale No.CCE- SER3/ALGS/9/ 2O2O-,0 LGS dated L7.O3 2O22 issu d t ,3 is ;et aside and the resDondents are directed to reinstate th oetitioner in dutv with allc onseo uential benefits withi r a peraqd of two(2) weeks from the date of receiot of q copy of thas order. It is however, observed that it i:; oDen to the resDondents to oro d aqainst the oetitio r er strictlv in accordance to law f the resoondents intr: rd to do so However, there shall e no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin(l in this Writ Petition, shall stand clgsed. r I //TRUE COPY// Sd/.A.JAYASREE AS: ISTANT REGISTRAR To sEcTtoN OFFTCER . Secretary to Government, t.r ucation Department, or c6lretiate td;;;, reran,v na Srate, Nampary, or coresiate Ed, :ation, Vidya Bhavan, Iff":?:ji3,i.io* EDUCAIoN, Hish court for rr,( irate of reransana at sERVIcES-l' Hish court for th€ )tate of relansana ar lffi":""r:Jioo,frfo*

1. The Special Chief ^ Secretariat, State of Tetangarr rt ivo".Lll."'""' ' Il:".!!,ffssioner ' i:Ji"rfil, HJI'J;Jf,"; ""'missioner - t 6. one CC to sRt AVADESH NARAYAN SANGH|, Advoc,r : [opUC] 7. Two CD Copies SA,/PMKa*, € C.C. TODAY ':,:-l ,r'^ \'" /l .L\ l.i r)ti': 1t /i''.) '.\tr l 1 t' (. :a It {". -i/ qPF 202[ <a. '': HIGH COURT DATED: 0211212025 ORDER WP.No.3S534 of 2022 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. COQID (* s $