Dr. G. Vijay Kumar v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.pHANl BHUSHAN Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES-||| The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAIVIA\/ARAPU RA.IESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29456 of 2024 ORDER: The present Writ Petition questions the action of the 2"d respondent in placing the petitioner under suspension vide impugned proceedings No.2772OlSlEl2O24' dated t6.to.2024.

2. Heard Sri A. Phani Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-lll for respondents. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initiatly appointed as a Technical Assistant through the Pr.rblic Service Commission and posted to the office of the Assistant Director, Mines, Mancherial' Subsequentl)', the petitioner was posted as In-Charge Assistant Director of Mines and Geologr, Mahabubnagar, on 31.05.2021. While so, the MLA, Jadcherla, made a cornplaint to the Minister for Revenue I & PR Government of Telangana, raised certain issues against M/s Sri Varahi 2 *-,:t Infra Developers and Ventures developed by Giridari Construction Limited and the Minister for Revenue I & pR Government of Telangana, directed Addl. Collector Revenue to submit factua_l report in the matter. pursuant to the same, Additional Collector Revenue had enquired into the matter and submitted his report to the Minister on 23.OI.2024. Thereafter. upon instructions of the 4rh respondent, the petitioncr inspectecl the subject area in Sy.No. 118/p o[ Balanagar Village and Mandal, and upon noticing certain deviations, the petitioner had issued a show-cause notice riated 2g.02 .2024 to M/s Sri Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures pointing out the lapses and directed to submit their expranation and shou,-ca,se as to why the penalty of Rs.5, 12,49,748/_ of sergnorage fee cannot be imposed against rhem. 3(1). In pursuant to the above said show_c:ause dated 28.02.2024, M/s Sri Varahi Infra Devclopers and Ventures had submitted their explanation dated nottce

05.O3.2024 stating that they did not commit l/ t, / i 3 irregularities as alleged in the show-cause notice and in the layout, and they have placed the reliance on the Government Order isstred vide G.O.Ms.No.139, dated l2.ll.2oL3 wherein the Government had exempted the seignorage fee for levelling the lald for agriculture/civil purpose which is other than mining purpose. Thereafter, the Surveyor, office of the AD Mines and Geologz surveyed on 07.O3.2O24 to ctll out the truth of the explanation and subrnitted his report on O7.O3.2O24 showing elevation in meters with C Level from August 2Ol7 to June 2023 in as many as B points. Based on the explanation submitted by the M/s Sri Varahi Infra-Developers and Ventures, the report submitted by the Surveyor and in view of the orders in G.O.Ms. No.139, dated 12.11.2013, the petitioner issued a letter, dated 07.03.2024 dropping the further action pursuant to the show-cause notice, dated 28.02.2024 against M/s Sri Varahi Infra-Developers and Ventures. 3(2). Thereafter, the Government issued orders vide G.O.Rt.No.43, dated 14.O3.2O24 transferring the Gazette Officers working in Mines and Geologz Department and 4 ,.4 wherein the petitioner was also subjected to transfer from Medak and In-Charge Mahabubnagar, to Jangaon and pursuant to thereof, the petitioner joined as an Assistant Geologist on 15.03.2024 ancl he was aISo placed as In_ Charge Assistant Director of Jangaon. Subsequent to transfer of the petitioner, the 4rh respondent is said to have been issued proceedings dated 2r.o5.2024, constituting Four men committee comprising oI- the R.D.O., Mahabubnagar, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jadcherla, ADSLR, Mahabubnagar, and Deputy Director of Mines and Geologr, Hyderabad, to enquire in detail on the allegations. The Committee submitted their report on 28.05.2024 by observing that a quantity of 1,67,396/_ Metric Ton was brought/processed from outside the Venture area and recommended action against the developers and thereafter, the Deputy Director, Mines and Geologz and District Collector submitted their reports on 29.O5.2024 and 15.10.2024 respectively to the 2nd respondent and recommended for action against the developers. Subsequently, While the petitioner was I i t' 5 discharging his duties, the 2nd respondent had issued impugned proceedings proceedings / No.2772Ol8lEl2024, dated 16.1O.2024, placing the petitioner under suspension by alleging that the petitioner had dropped further action against M/s Sri Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures. Submrssions on behalf of petitioners 3(3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of initiating appropriate action against M/s Sri Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures, surprisingly, the 2"a respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension and upon careful perusal of suspension orders dated

16.10.2024, the contents would reveal that it is a clear case of political vengeance between local MLA and M/S Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures and that the respondents did the entire exercise to satisfy their political bosses, and the petitioner was made a sufferer. 3(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the purpose of placing an employee under suspension is to avoid tampering with evidence, 6 manipulation of records and prevent petitioner to exert undue influence on the witnesses pending disciplinary proceedings. In the case on hand, the petitioner was already transferred from Mahabubnagar to Jangaon as early on 14.03.2024 and as such, there was no occasion to tamper with the evidence or to influence the witness, as such, placing the petitioner under suspension is wholly unwarranted. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 4- Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that subsequent to the transfer of the petitioner the enquiry was ordered by respondent No.4 and a tbur member committee comprising of the R.D.O., Mahabubnagar, Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jadcherla, ADSLR, Mahabubnagar, ald Deputy Director of Mines and Geoiogr, Hyderabad, was constituted to re-enquire in cletail on the allegations on M/S Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures in Sy.no. Ilg/p, Balanagar village and mandal and submit a joint survey and inspection report. ) /, lt,/ { 7 Accordingly, they concluded that the NALA position diverted earlier as per the field observation and a quantity of 1,67,396 MT of Gravel was brought/processed from outside the venture area anlounting to. Rs.46,59,068/- Normal Seigniorage fee. Further, as per the Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1966 "If ang person cat'rLes on quarrAtng operations or transports minor minerals in contrauention of these rules, he slwll be liabte to pag as penalty, such enhanced seigniorage fee together assessmenfs as maA be imposed bg an Officer nominated by the Director of Mines and Geologg" 4(i) Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that under the prescribed rule, ten times penalty amorrnting to Rs.4,65,9O,6801- was imposed against the M/s Sri Varahi Infra Developers arld Ventures together with Normal Seigniorage fee of Rs.46,59,065/- aggregating to Rs.5,12,49,748/- and accordingly the show cause notice dated 2a.O2.2024 was issued to M/S Varahi Infra Developers and Ventures. It is clearly established that the negligent and incorrect aotQn of the petitioner in dropping 8 show cause notice, dated 28.02.2024 leads to huge mineral revenue loss to the government exchequer. Hence, respondent No.2 issued suspension orders for the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner iri discharging the duties, which leads to huge revenue loss to the Government exchequer. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ petition

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submittecl that the petitioner, after going through the report submitted by the concerned Surveyor and the G.O.Ms.No.139, dropped further action against M/s Sri Varahi lnfra_Developers and Ventures ard the petitioner did not commit any mistake. The power of suspension should not be exercised in an arbitrary manner and administrative routine axd without any reasonable grounds. He relied upon the order of this court in G. Govindu Vs. Telangana Stcrte Road. Transport should not be macle as .tttta' i'r: Ir I I f ,1$xr l: , f: r I I I t t : I Corporation, Hgderabad., and anothert wherein this Court observed as under: "33. In Union of India u. Ashok Kumar AgganucLl (supra), Supreme Court held: "21. The pou.ter of suspension should not be exercisetl in an arbitrary manner and uithout ang reasonable grouncl or as uindictiue misuse of pou.ter. Suspension shouki be made onlg in a case u.there there is a strong pima facie case against the delinquent emplolJee and the allegations inuoluing moral turpitude, graue mi.sconduct or indiscipline or refusal to carry out the orders of supeior authoitg ure there, or there is o strong pimo facie case against him, if proued, uould ordinarily result in reduction in rank, remoual or dlsmissal from seruice. The authorltg shoukl also take into account all the auailable mateial as to tuhether in a giuen case, it is aduisable to ctlLou.t the d_elinquent to continue to perfonn his duties in the olftce or his retention in offi.ce is likely to hamper or frustrutte the inquiry.

27. Suspension is a deuice to keep the delinquent out of the mischief range. The purpose is to complete the proceeclings unhindered. Suspension is an interim measure in the aid of disctplinary proceedings so that the delinquent maA not gain custody or control of pctpers or take anA aduantage of his position- More so, at this stage, it is not desirable that the Court mag find out os to tuhich uersi.on is tnte uthen there are claims and counter-claims on foctual issues The Court cannot act as if it is an appellate forum de hors the pouers of ludicial reuietu . . . . ' zo tz1:; eLo lss 10

29. Hotueue.r, as the suspension ord.er constitutes a great hardship to lhe parson concemed as it leods to retlrrr_tion in emoluments, aduerselg alfects his prospects of promotton and also ca.rried a stigm(), an order of suspension should not be made in a perfunctory or in a routine and casuaL manner but tuiLh d.ue care and caution afi-er taking alL factors into cLccou nt. "

38. As n.oted abotte, thctugh, pouer to place an officer/ emptoAee under suspension is concedecL to emploger/ competent QuthoitA and can be resorted. tct enJbrce discipline; conueg to all the emplogees that dereliction of dutg cannot be tolerated; to ensure that emploqee tuould not create impecliment; and hauing regctrcl to the grauitA of allegations, in larger public interest, it is necessary to suspend, but such pou)er must be exercise,cl spanngLg ancl slnulcl not be mad_e cts an administratite routine or en automatic consequence of a.ltege(l disobedience and detailed. assessmenl must be mode. It should not be resofterj to os a metter of course in att and sundnt cases of al.legation of misconcluct and should be resorted to such course sparinglg and. in the larger interest of the orgctntzcLtion ond in public interest. Whener.,er. o person is pLaced unde_r suspension, the d.iscipttnary proceeclings stu:rukj. be concluded uithin ct ftxed time frame. The Coufts are cau1ioning the emploger to resort to suspension on. cctreful consideration of the pros and. utns and should be resorted fo spainglg.,,(also obserued by thi_s hon'ble courl in G. Shqshi Kumar Us. Ifgderabad and qnother2) "SRTC, 'zotzl:; ALo 6o: f I I I I l, I I I I .i ll,t: ,!*i' 11

6. In the present case, the petitioner after going through the report submitted by the concerned Surveyor and the G.O.Ms.No. 139, dropped further action against M/s Sri Varahi Infra-Developers and Ventures and based on such action, he was placed under suspension after effecting his tralsfer. In the present case, on the one hand, the petitioner was transferred from Mahabubnagar to Jangaon I as an In-Charge Assistant Director of Jangaon and on the other hand, suspension orders were issued. For a single allegation that the petitioner dropped further action against M/S Varahi Infra Developers Ventures, two punishments cannot be sustained, as such, the action of the respondents is bad in law.

1. In view of the foregoing reasons, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into servlce pending disciplinary proceedings and he may be posted as al In- Charge Assistant Director of Jangaon. The respondents further directed to complete the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in a time bound manner, { ! I2 preferably, within a period of (06) six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. B. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaleous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI D PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 7 ,TRUE COPY// To, A 1 The Principal Secretary to Government, lndustries and Commerce (ft/ines and Geology) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. 2 3 4 E 6 The Director, lvlines and Geology Department. Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Deputy Director of Mines and Geology Department, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad District. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar District at lrlahabubnagar One CC to SRI A.PHANI BHUSHAN, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-I||, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies 7 BSR GJP ,l t 't HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ( cJ o t) tr{L SlAa e 0 2 tiAY 2025 Z 6' t oEspATC\.r€O t ORDER WP.No.29456 of 2024 PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 2/ l t t I i I I : I i I I I I i I l i i i .l] I