The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 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 declaring action of the respondent in imposing the punishment of three (3) increments with cumulative effect without giving notice and not following the procedure established under rules and also violative of principles of natural justice by issuing the impugned Ref. No. SCES/SEC/20221627 dated 06- 06-2022 is liable to be set aside. f .i. .?i lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Seclion '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in relation to the Ref. No.SCES/SE C l2O22l 627 dated 06-062022, pending disposal of main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for Respondents No.3&4:SRl P.SRI HARSHA REDD\|,SC FOR SCCL The Court made the following: ORDER .r' t' i!- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITIoN No.38216 of2022 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: "-..to issue a Wit, order or direction more particalarlg one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing qction of the reipond.ent in imposing the puni.shment of three (3) increments with anmuiatiue effect uithout gluing notice and not followtng the procedure established u-nde.r rutes qnd also uiolatiue of pinciples of natural justice bg issutng the impugned Rel I/o. SCES/ SEC/ 2022/ 627 aatia OA-OAIZOZZ is tiable to be set asLde and pass. .."

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had been working as Lecturer in Singareni Collieries Women,s Degree College, Kothagudem, since 1995, and thereaftcr, she was absorbed into grant_ in-aid post w.e.f., 24.O8.2O01. Subsequently, she was promoted as Associate Professor in 2OO1 and was later appointed as principal (FAC) in July, 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner was awa-rded a ph.D. on 09.O7.2O2O arrd became fully eligibte for regular promotion to the post of Therefore, the petitioner sought for the said promotion. Principal based on complaint lodged against the petitioner by one Mr. K Shiva Shankar, the respondents conducted an enquiry against the petitioner. After conducting the enquiry, based. on the enquiry report, the respondents had removed the petitioner from tJ:e position of However, E- '] 2 PK, J W.P.No.38216 of 2022 Principal (FAC). and subsequently imposed a major penalty of withholding of three increments wrth cumulative effe( t vide impugned proceedings in Ref.No.SCES ISEC 12022 /627 dated 0(i.06.2022 issued by respondent No.3. Assailing the same, the presenl writ petition is liled.

3. Heard Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel ap cearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services;-I on behalf of respondent Nos.i a-nd 2, and Sri P. Sri Harsha Redd1,, [sarn.d Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contented that the complaint lodged against the petitioner by one Mr. K. Shiva Shanliar '*,as false and motivated by her disgruntled subordinates and s-te was unfairly targeted due to her strict disciplinary approach. It is ftrther contended that respondent No.2, instead of questioning the veracity of the complaint, directly jumped into conclusions and removed the petitioner from the duties of Principal (FAC) vide proceedings d{ed 24.09.2022, even before the preliminary enquiry officer submitted his report. It is further contended that even though the enquiry offic:r submitted his report in favour of the petitioner, the same was not r:ommunicated to her, and further proceedings against the petitione:' were also not ----l I 3 PK, J W.P.No.382)6 of 2022 dropped. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 appointed another enquiry officer i.e., Principal, Government Degree Coilege, yellandu, for conducting a fresh enquiry. However, when once arr enquiry was conducted and the enquiry ofhcer also submitted the report in favour of the petitioner, the question of appointing a fresh enquiry officer does not arise and the same is impermissible under law. It is further contended that no charge memo or charge sheet, framing arty charges against the petitioner, was ever issued to her, calling for her explalation and no list of documents and list of witnesses were furnished to her. No presenting orrcer was appointed. She was not provided any opportunity to defend her case, thereby, violating the principles of natural justice and the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,

1991. It is further contended that despite arr initial enquiry report was in favour of the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings were not dropped. Moreover, respondent No.2 has appointed a second enquiry officer i.e., Principal, Government Degree College, yellandu, which is impermissible under law. Thereafter, the petitioner also submitted her explanation to the second enquiry report but the same was not considered in proper perspective. As such, the imposition of a major pena-Ity of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect is highly illegal, arbitrary and without application of mind. Therefore, 4 PK, J W.P.No..18216 of 2022 learned counsel lor the petitioner prays this Court to a-llou, the present writ petit ion by setting aside the impugned punishrnent order dated

06.06.',2022.

5. Per contra. It:arnerl counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that upon receiving a complaint dated. 12.02.202O f-om Mr. K Shiva Shankar against thc petitioner, regarding misuse o[ funds and other allegations, respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to enquiry into the same vide Mcmo I 1.03.2020. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.2 has appointed thc principal, Government Degree College, Kothagudem, as rhc enquiry officer on O 1 .OS.2020 and advised the Secretary a.d Co.respondent of Singareni Collieries Wome,,s Degree College to remove rhc petitioner from the post of principal (FAC) and appoint the next senior-most Lecturer as principal (FAr)) of SCWDC vide proceedings datcd 01.09.2020. Therefore, there is n: illegality in the action ol the respondent No.2 in removing the petitioner from the post of Principal (FAC). Accordingly, the petitioner was remo,red from the post of Principal (FAC). Subsequently, vlde proceedings dated 16.O3.2O2t , respondent No.2 appointed the Principal, Government Degree College, Yeilandu, as the enquiry ofhcer replacing the earlier enquiry officer (Principal, Government Degree College, Kothagudem), as the enquiry report submitted by him was found to be not in orc er. It is further f 5 PK, J W.P.No.38216 oJ 2O22 submitted that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are misuse of funds, collecting the tuition fee from SC/ST and BC students, not taking classes being the in-charge principal, harassment of staff, etc. Further, while conducting the enquiry, the enquiry officer issued a notice to the petitioner dated 30.07.2020, and the petitioner also acknowledged the same, which is evident from her letter dated OI.O8.2O2O to the Secrctary, SCES, wherein, she had requested to relieve her so as to attend the enquiry. Subsequently, after concluding the enquiry, the enquiry officey' submitted his enquiry report to respondent No.2. In turn, respondent No.2 advised respondent No.3 to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Telangana State Education Act, 19g2. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, vide proceedings dated O1.06.2022, accorded approval for imposing the penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect as per Rule 9 of the CCA Rules. As such, respondenl No.3 has issued the present impugned order dated 06.06.2022, imposing a major penalty of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect after obtaining internal approval from aly Singareni Collieries Company Limited as per the existing practice. Therefore, the respondents are justihed in issuing the present i #d i.,lti& 6 PK, J W.P No.38216 of 2022 lmpugned order dated 06.06.2022 Therefore, it is pral,gd to dismiss the present pet ition.

6. This court has takr:n out rival contentions and submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. A perusal of the record discloses that no charl;e memo/charge sheet, framing anv ch,rges against the petitioner, wirs issued berore lnrtiating the ciisciplir-rary proceedings, which is a fundamental requirement as per Rnle 20 of the Telangana Civil Services (classihcation. Contror and Appeal) Rules, 199 l, and this failure on the part of the rcspondcnts in issuing such a charge memo renders lhe entire disciplinarv procccdin gs uoid ab initio. Rule 20 cf the Telangana Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 199 1 , lays down the mandatory pro<;edure that is supposed to be folorved in disciplinary proceedings. u,hich include, issuance of a charge memo, appointment of a presenting officer, recording of st€ tement of the witnesses, marking of documents and so on. .lhc relevattt provisions of the said Rules are extractcd hereunder: ,O proc-edr rc for_ rmposing malor penalties:_- (1 No order ::r: lmposrng an1. of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (;) of Rule g shall be made except aJter an inquiry held, as far as rnuy'0", ,., tt" manner provided in this Rule and Rule 2l of in thc mannerl rrovrcled h. the Andhra pradesh t.jrrl Servi,-es lDiscipli.r^. p.;;;;;g;;;;i ;. & 7 PK, J w.P.No.3a216 of 2022 Act, 1960 or the Andhra Pradesh Lokaymkta and Upa-Lokal rkta Act, 1983, where such inquiry is held under the said Acts. (2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against a Government Servant, it may itself inquiry into, or appotnt under this Rule, as the case may be, authority to inquire into the truth thereoi (3) Where it rs proposed to hold an inquiry agarnst a Government Servant under this Rule or Rule 21, the Disciptinary Authority or the Controlling Authority who is not designated as Disciplinary Authority and who is subordinate to the Appointing Authority can draw up or cause to be dra,*.n up- (i) misbehavior into definite arrd distinct articles of charge. The substance of the imputations o[ misconduct (ir) A statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in support of each article of charge, rvhich shall contain (a) A statement of all relevant facts including any admission or confessron made by the Government Servant. (b) A list of documents by which and a hst o[ witness by whom, the articles of char.ge are proposed to be sustained. 14) The Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government Servant a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior and a list of documents ard witnessed by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and copies of the said documents and statements of the said witnesses and shall require the Government Servant to appear before the Disciplinary Authority on such day and at such time not exceeding ten working days and submit a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person."

8. Admittedly, the impugned punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner basing F i:'-4:.. I ..li' r'1?. 8 PK, ,I W.P.No.382)6 of 2022 on the enquiry report furnished by the second enquiry officer i.e., the Principal, Govern mcnt Degree College, Yellandu. Hou,e ver, according to the petiLioner, no u'itnesses were examined during the enquiry, no documents wcrc rnarked, no opportunity was provided to her for cross- examining any ',r, itt'rcsses, and no enquiry report that :;erved as a basis for imposition o[ t]re impr.rgned punishment, was ever served on her. The counter affirlnvit filed b1, the respondents is silent rrnd fails to rebut these contentiorrs of the petitioner. It is well-settled law that before imposing any punishment., a charged officer must be st.rved with a copy of the enquiry rr:polt and an opportunity to submit his, her explanation- However, in the prcscnt case, the respondents failed to crovide the same to the petitioner, t.herebr., violating the principles ol natural justice. Furthermole, thcre is no cvidcncc on record to show that any witnesscs were examined, ant' docu mcnts u'ere marked or th,: petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine any witnesses. As such, it can be construed thirt the disciplinary proceedings, which are already uoid- ob-initio, \,",ere conducted in utter violation of provisions of Rule 20 of the CCA Ru1es.

9. In the forcgoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that thc impugned punisl'rment order dated 06.06.2022 is vitiat:d by procedural I 9 PK, J W.P.No.38216 of 2O22 irregularities and the same is unsustainable under law. Therefore, the impugned punishment order is liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned punishment order vide Ref.No.SCES/ SEC /2022 /62T dated, 06.06.2022 issued by respondent No.3. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs //TRUE COPYII SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL ASSI TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings' State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad. 3. The Conespondent, Singareni Collieries Educational. Society, Qr.No. UM-14' Writers Ba;thi, Kothagudem - 507 101, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, Telangana State. 4. The -General Manager (Education), Secretary of Singareni Collieries Educational Society, 0r.llo. Ul,l-t+, Writers Basthi, Kothagudem - 507 101' Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, Telanganq Slqt.e 5. One CC to SRI J.SUDHEER, Advocate. IOPUCI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Couh for the State of Telangana. 7. bne'CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC for Singareni Collieries tOUI Company Limited. [OPUC]

8. Two CD Copies. BSK BSw .g To, CC TODAY rIE ST,dIE o 1 J c L) 1B tt'fiil ?0?5 + " , ,. 1_'. i- .t. HIGH COURT DATED:07103t2025 ORDER WP.No.38216 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS u.od*L Q;f.. \\ t l f