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 certiorari or any other appropriate writ calling for all relevant and connected record relating to Proceedings No. CRP/PERlClO12lvl1g00 dated 26t07 t2O21 and quash or set aside the Articles of charges issued by the respondents holding it as illegal, arbitrary and void and lacking in inherent jurisdiction. q+EW' l,ly t/ -- lA NO: 1 oF 2021 Petition under section 'r 5'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the writ petition, the High court may be preased to stay all further proceedings in proceeding No. cRp/pER rc/012rvr1,O0 dated 26t07t2021 lA NO; 1 OF 2022 Between: 'e'i iei '|r',/i I \v(r I The Singareni Collieries Cn-Ip?ly Limited (SCCL), Rep. by its Chairman and lr/anagino Director r ano ois^bipriirary Ai,iht-ri-tvi, ii"i[aguoem corieries-507 '101 , Bhadradr Kothbgudem oisi. tidl.' The Director, (Personnel, Administration and Welfare), The Sinoareni corieries co rnda nv rim ite{-1sccli"" K"fi;;, jJil - ---'' i6rri"ri"""_s-o?ri 5i'] Bhadradri Kothagudi.'m Oist. dS). The General lVanaoer (personnel), Executive Establishment, The Sinqareni collieries comoa n-v rim ite{ (sbc1); ---lr bi,rribri"'r'-stz'i Ei'l Bhadradri Kothagudbm Oist. OS). xotds,;;6rn. " rrvarruvqvvrr i\vrrruvuuv'r - - ...PETITIONERS 1 2 J AND S.V.S.S. Rama linoeswarudu, S/o Lakshmana Swamy, Aged about 62 vears. occ Retired Gen-erat rr,r,1ist-1!Cij)" iii" SiiisJilhi ttri",i".. cil;;;i; Limited (sccl), Rl/o H ry"; io1,-nftr;i' s";"N:tyz, -il;;; 6KE;;[1; Prashant Nagar, HyderabaO-SOO O+S, dSi.' -"' ''' "r' ...RESPONDENT Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the interim order dated 03-01-2022 passed in r.A.No 112021 inw.p.No. 37521121 and dismiss the writ petition as devoid of merits. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI GODA SHIVA, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. SMT GODA RAMALAKSHMI counsel for the Respondents: SRr p.sRr HARSHA REDDY, sc FoR sccL The Court made the following: ORDER r' ') HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 37s2L oF 2021 o RDER: Sri Goda Shiva, Iearned Senior Counscl appearing onbehalfofsmt.GodaRamaLakshmi,learncdcounsclfor petitioner submits that petitioner joined respondent Singareni Collieries Company Limited as Mining Graduate Trainee (MGT) on 12.03.1983 On account of hard work' mcritorious sen'ice ancl several achievements, he u'as promoted as (ier-reral Manager on 20.05.2Ol3 After serving 37 ycars and 8 months of dedicated service, he retired as General Manage r (HRD) on 30.11.2O2O on attaining the age of 60 years' Petitioner states that he was constrained to 1.1 approach this Court after his retirement as responden ts nearly more than 4 years after he left the Contract Managcment Ccll as General Manager, issued a Charge Memo (Articlcs of Charges) dated 26.O7 -2021 alleging that pe[itioner r:ommittcd the following misconducts: (a) He failed to workout required technicat & financial implications before increasing the conventional equipmcnt from 3 to 8 as per the il; .3.',...,o. in pre-bid meiting due to rvhich therc is a ;fi;";;; financial loss of Rs 44.73 Crores' (b) He has failed to evaluate a formula for HEMM in cornbinatron rvith conventional equipment as envisaged in the order and responsiblc for ""iii"g "r -"o"dictory clause vide Para 1 1 3(e) and 1 1 3(g) (c) Fte farled to verify the contradicting clauscs in corporate in the OB contract Order for Pal'ment 'i I { ,l 2 (d) He failed in taking into consideration of contr.actor,s uploaderl rlocum:nt which state.s the proposed.l.pby;.;;';; 6.50 cum shovel in comoinalion rrirh l0O T Dumpers. (e) IIe failed to notice the mod'ihcations approved by the authorit1 throL.rg;r corrrgen.lum IV vide aut"a 'i.+.ZO fo. enquirl no.E11i500.+71. cjated 22.02.2016, I 1,3 (e; noi re,tected as per the corrige idrrm in thc order But, rvhilc issuing thc c,rcler, Lhe clausc which rvas published belore corrigendrrrt *." ir.r"lra"O. f ,, According to the responden[s, the ab6y6 2s15 amounL to misconduct under the following clauses ol. CDA Rulcs.

5.1: 'ltr:[t, fraud or dishonesty in connection lvith the business or prop( rt' ol the company or of properry of anothel person within trrc prernisr:s ol the Compan-r,. 5.5: Acting in a nranner prejudicial to the interests or rmage of LI.re Compar r . 5.9; Neqlect o[ rvork or, negligence in the pcrtormance of duty inclu(lrng nralingering or slor.vinglout of *,o.k. 5_22: Arv lrreach of any oI the provisrons of these rules, or anv other statulcs or rtrlcs malingering or slowing ao*., ot\rn.t . 5.22; Arr, breach of any of the provisiois of tfr.s. iule", or anl. other statulcs or rulcs. 4.1: E\.e v emplovee of the Company shall at all times , i) mitintain absolutc integrity; (ii) nraintain devotion to duty, and (iii)conduct himself at all times in a manner u,hich u,ill erhancc thc reputatron of the ,Company, (ii'rErrc* cmproyee of the company shair at a, times do noting u irich is unbecoming of a pubiic ;lwanr.

1.2 PcLitioner further states that Respondents conclude that he has no defense and proceed with lhe Charge Memorandun: (Articles of Charges), in spite of the illegality it suflcrs from and furnishecl expianaLion on 17 .Og.2O2l. The trnquiry Officcr was appointed uid,e Office dated 2O.O9.2O21. ln that spite, the legarity of the same is liable to be ad.iudicated as the ground on which the same is questioned is lack of inherent .lurisdiction l, I' J According to petitioner, the entirc cause of action i.3 arose only during pre-processing of tender which was during his tenure as General Manager from l4'O4'2O15 to 23 04 2076' Assuming only for argument that the said process was the basis lor [rnalization of Purchase Order' that was issued on '2g.06.2016,afterpetitronerwasmovedfromCMCDepartmenl' Thus, the event and/or cause of action occurrcd and arose cluring 2O 1 5 16 and on 29 '06 2016 respective lv This is a crucial factor u'hich ought to have been considered before issuing the impugned charge memo Petitione r also sta lcs that being an Executive, he was governed by the Service Regulzrtions ,,singareni Collieries Executives Conduct, Discipline and callecl Appeal Rules, 1989"(Ru1es, 1989 for brevity)' Rute 34 prohibits issuing of charge memo for an event or cause of action that took place or arose four years prior to the institution l n the instant case , a bare reading of Charge Memo cleariy indicates petitioner \vas working as General Manager (CMC) ic' ' Contract Management Cell from 14 'O4 '2015 to 23 04'2016 during which period, respondents alleged misconduct attributable to petitioner. Since the Charge Memo was issued on 26'07 2027' onthefaceofit,theChargeMemoisonewithoutjurisdictionas such the same is illegai and non est in Law' t ,t:, i a_r 4

1.4 Further, petitioner contends that on 22.02.2076 tender was iio:rted for award o[ work order ancl as on that datc, he r,r.as General Manager (Contract Management Cell) from 14.04.2O15 tct 23.O4.2O16. Though petitioner u,zLs u,orking as Ceneral Mat'raeer, tender was scrutinizcd, exanrined by GM (CP&P), CNr (F&A), Dircctor (P&P), Director (F-inance) for financi:rl corrcurrence and to recommencl to C&l\4 D, r.vho is the final appro'i'rg authority for pracement of proposal in the Board. PetiLioner iurlher submits that hc u.as nowherc ccncerned with zrpproval as irr Lhat time he uras not GM (CMC) ancl at any rate, he n as not I te fir-ral authoritl. to accept/approve the tcnder. At best and at worst, he processed the tender only. That apart, petitioner \ as not in Contract Management Cell after 23.04.2016 :Ls can bt: seen from the Chargc Me.mo. In fact, tcnder u.as :rpprovcd b1. the Board of Dircctors at u,hich point of time he ieft rhe Contract Management Cell. Hencc, any event after petitionr:r lelt thc Contract Management Cell cannot, by any wildest i:naginations, attributable to him. Thus, ex facie charge Memo dated 26.02.202r is illegal and bad in 1aw and also suffcrs from an inherent lack ofjurisdiction in view of the special provision made in R-34.5. Therefore, petil.ioner prays that impugncc. charge memo is liable to be interfereo.. I t, I, t 5 ) Per corrtrr-, lcarned Standing Counsel for 2. respondents Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddy contends that SCCL is a Governme nt Coal Mining Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956- It is jointly owned by both thc GovernmenI of Tclangana and the Gove rnment of India on 5 ] :49 equity basis. According to him, petitioner was initially appointed on 12.O3 1983 and retired frorn the services of GM(HRD) on 30.11'2O2O' Hc rvas Respondcnt ComPanY AS postedtonorkasGeneralManager(ContractManagement)on 14 .O4.2015 uicle olhce Order dated 1 1 04 2O 15; workcd as Hcad o[ Contract Management Department from 14 04'2015 to 23.O4.2016 and dealt/controlled all the subject matters in the department. While working as Head of Contract Management DepartmenL, Corporate, Petitioner was one of the members in Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) approval committee Petitioner is r,r,ell arvare of Diesel formula and equipment which u'as proposed in the NIT. [t is submitted that Petitioner incorporated a wrong Diesel formula which resulted in huge financial loss to SCCL exchequer i.e. about Rs'44 73 crores' Further' Petitioner also failed to workout required technical and hnancial implications before increasing conventional equipment from 3 to 8 at the request of the Contractor in pre-bid meeting' due to which, there is huge financial loss of Rs'44 73 Crores r* ,l 't , (\. 6 (approximately) to the SCCL. Respondent comparry rel.erred the matter to V gilance & Enforcemcnt Department, (iovernment of Telangana on or.oz -2o2o to enquire into the matt()r since it was grave ir-r n,rture. The Vigilance & Enforcement t)epartment, Govcrnment ol Telangana commenced its enquiry in Jul_y 2O20 and su bmit tecl report to Chairman & MD ol- Respondent Company ot 04.06.2021 recommending disciplinary action against Petii ioner and other 24 candidates. petrl ioner,s name was at S1.lrJo.12 in rhe Lettcr dated O4.06.2021 and the Secretary to (i.overnment adviscd SCCL to initiate ruajor penalty proceeding against the officials. It is submitted thret during the enquiry of Viqilance & Enforcement Department, (iovernment of Telangana, Petitioner deposed in his statement that NIT was prepared ir-r the samc lines of OCp, RG.l and RKpOC, Mandamarri Area of Respondcnt Company cvcn conditions in SRpOCp are diflerent from other OCPs. It is submitted that petitioner also incorporated contradictory clauses in 1l-r,^ purchase Order/Tender, with s.hich contractor was benefited lOOo/o rate for Excavation of OB for rnitial one and half year period which caused enormous loss to the company. It is submitted that for the above acts, petitioner was issued Articles of charge for dishonesty in connectior-r u.ith the business of the company, neglect of work and vioration of Rules though NIT t, I, I a 1 i1 under Clauses 5.1, 5.5, 5'g, 5'22 read with 4'1 of CDA Rules uide LetLer dated 26.07 .2O2I ' According to learned Standing Counsel' Petitioner 2.1 acknowledged the Articles of charge and submitted his statement of delence on 17 'O8 2O21 which was not found satisfactory, as such, the Disciplinary Authority of Respondent Company ordered for enquiry by appointing Enquiry Officer and Presenting Ofltcer uide Office Order dated 2O'O9'2O21 lt is Submitte(lthattrnquiryoflrcercommencedenquiryproceedings on 01.1 I.2O2), uide Notice of enquiry datcd 23 1O'202 1 and at the instance of petitioner only enquiry lr'as adjourned' Having submitted explanation on 17 'O8 2O2l to the charge memo dated 26.O7 .2O2I, petitioner is not entitled to question the Articles of charge. Hence, the Writ petition is not maintainable under lart' and the same is liable to be dismissed' According to

2.2 disciplinary authority can iniLiate disciplinary proceedings even learned Senior Counsel' the onretiredExecutivesbyissuingspecialapprovalunder34.4(i) and (i). [n the instant case, the disciplinary authority has accorded / approved for initiation of disciplinary action against petitioner along with other Executives involverl in the diesel case, as such, the contention of Petitioner that he u'as issued Articles of charge illegally by the management after four vears of 'i 'i ,i 8 his leaving the Contract Management Department, Corporate is not tenable. Futther, it is submitted, the allegations of petitioner that he did not work in Contract Management trepartment by the time of issue of purchase Order dated 29.06_2016 as he was posted as GM(HRD) on 23.O4.2O16 is nor renable sincc Petitioner hrrs completely involved in initiation ol. NIT approval as Committce member and also incorporation of contradictory clauses in Purr:hase orcler/Tcnder. The Cornpany has come to knorr", the incidenL on O2.O2.2O19 and Articlcs of Charge have bcen issued to petitioner within thc stipulated rrmc undcr CDA Rules of the company. From thc above, it is submitted thal the disciplinary authority can initiate discipline proceedings even on retired Execr_ tivcs by issuing special approval uncler 34.4 (i) and (it) In thc instant case, the disciplinary authority Ilas accorded/approved for initiation of disciplinarl, ar;tron against petitioner alorg with other Execulives involved in the diesel case as such the pleadings of petitioner that he u.as issur:cl Articles of charge illegally by the management after 4 years of his lcaving the Contract Management Department, Corpor.ate is not tenable.

2.3 The respondent company had issued charge memo to petitioner oa 26.O7.2021with specihc charges who submittecl explanation on lT _Og.2021 . Since the explanatic,n u,as not I, t, t, w o satisfactory, the respondent company appointed an EnquLry oflrceron2o.og.2o2landpetitionerappearedbeforehimand sought time and at his ins[ance , the trnquiry Ofhcer adiourned the enquiry, hence, the Writ Petition questioning the charge memo dated 26.07 .2Cl21is not permissible under lau'' The short and limited point involved in the present 3. case is that whethcr respondents are justified in issuing Charge Memo (Arficles of Charges) d'atecL 26'07 '2021 nearly more than four years after petitioner left the Contract Managcment Cell as Ceneral Manager in 2O l6 According to Petitioner' the entire cause of action 4. arose only during the pre-processing of tender which was during his tenure as General Manager ftom l4'O4 2015 to 23'04 2016' Even for the sakc of arg-rrmcnt, the said process v.,a s the basis for finalization o[ Purchase Ordcr that was issued on 29.06.2016 ie. alter petitioner was moved from CMC Department. Thus, [he event and/or cause of acLion occurred and arose during 2015-16 and on 29 '06 '2076 respectively This is a crucial factor which ought to have been considered before issuing the impugned charge memo Petitioner contends that he being an Executive while in service of the respondents and rvas governed by the 1989 Rules' On the other hand' respondents contend that Petitioner acknowledged the Articles of charge and ,i t 'l I l0 submitted statement of defencc on 17 .Og.2O21 lr.hich was not found satisfactory, as such, rhe Disciplinary Authority ordered for enquin by appointing Enquiry Officer ancl prescnting Oflicer uirle Oflice Crrder dated 20.Og.2O2l . trnquiry Officcr commenced proceedings on O 1 . Il.2O2l and at the instance ol petrtioner only, adjour:ed the enquiry. Having submittecl cxplanation on 17 OB 2027 lo the charge memo dated 26 OZ_2021, petirioner is not entitled to question Articles of charge. Thc disciplinary aruthoritv cir I initia[e disciplinary procecdings evr:n on retired Executives b-,, issuing special approval under 34.4 (i) and (i). The clisciplinan authority accordecl/ approvecl rnitiation of clisciplinarv action against petitioner along with other Executives involved in the diesel case, as such the,tontention of Pelrtion<:r th: t he was issued Articlcs of chargcs illegally by the n-ranagemet-rt after four years of lcaving thc Con tract Management f)epartment, Corporate is not ten:rblc. Further according to respondents, the allegations of petitioner that hc dicl not u.ork in Contract Management Department by the time of issue of Purchase Order dated 29.06.2016 as he was posted as GM(HRD) ;tn 23.04.2016 is not tenable since pt:titioner has completely rn,rolved in initiation of NIT approval as; Committee member and {sc incorporation of contradictory clzLuses in the Purchase order/Tender. The allegations made by petitioner that I t, I Respondent Company issued Articles of Charges after 4 years of ,i hisleavingtheContractManagementDepartment,Corporateis absolutely not true and correct and the samc is hereby denie d' The Respondent Company has come to know about lhe incidcnt ono2.o2.2olgandtheArticlesofChargehavebeenissuedto petitioner within stipulated time under CDA Rules of thc Company. Therefore, the disciplinary authority can initiate discipiine proceedings even on retired executives by issuing special approval under 34 4 (i) and (ii)' In the instant case' the authority accorded/ approved for initiation of action against petitioner along r'vrlh other disciplinary Executives involved in the diesel case' as such the pleadings of Petitioner that he was issued Articles of charges illegally by the management after four years of his leaving the Contract Management Department, Corporate is not tenable' disciplinary Before detving into the issue on hand' it is apposite

5. to refer to the relevant Rules of 1989 Rules' ConditionsforinitiatingdePartmentalproceedings aftet retirement: (34'4 and 34'5) Rule 34.4: "Where disciplinary proceedings are not instituted while the empioyee was in service' whether beforehisretlrementor-duringhisreemploymentthcsg shall not be instituted' (ii-il"" with the sanction of the c!-rief executive and izi f'o. ,.t event which took place more than 4 years before such instil ut ion ' 'i ,i I t, 12 t- The. disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the disciplir-rary authority mar. direct and in accordance with tre proccdure zLpplic able to executives in service on u,lLich o.de. imposing any penalty mentioned in Rule 27 could be pr ISS(. l. Rule 34.5: ,,No disciplinary proceedings shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action"which arose or in respect of an event which took place more than 4 years before such ihstitution. 'ar-,

6. [r is an admitted fact thaL pctrtl()ner lelt the Con[rrlcL MeLnagcment Cell as Genera[ Manager in 2O 16 itself and furthe; hc entire r:ause of action arose only cluring the pre processit-rg r f Lcnder which was during his tenure as Gcneral Manager fro:n 14.O4.2O15 to 23.O4.2016. F.urther, this Court after going rhrough the materiar documents, oprnes that the said process u,as the basis for finaiization of pur::hase Ordcr, thaf wzrs issr-Led on 29.06.2076, after petitioner ,,r,as; movcd liom tire CMC Delartment. Thus, lhe event and/or causc o[ action occu rrecl and arose during 20 1 S_ I 6 and on 29 .06.20 16 respectirrely. Respondents except formally denying the fact that petitioner did not work in Contract Management Dcpartment by the tirne of issue of purchase Order dated 29.06.20)6 as he u.as posted as GM(HRD) on 23.04.2016, no cogent material is placed beforc lhis Oourt to construe the fact that per,itioner was continuing in Contract Management Department by the time oI issue of Purchase Order dated 29.6.2O16. trven if. t jre saicl date iljaken into c:onsideration, the charge memo daLed_ 26.O7.2O21 l-j is beyond the period of four year period as prescribed in Rule ,^

34.5 of Rules, 1989. 7 . It is trite law that when the Rule s prescribe cerLatn timeperiodforinstitutionofdisciplinaryproceedingsagainst delinquent employee, the same has to Lre scrupulously iollou'ed by the Aulhority which was governed by the rules ln other words, it becomes a jurisdictional point to the Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against ils cmplol'ec rvithin pre scribed time limits enumerated in the Rules If the Authority fails to aclhere to the time fixecl for initiating disciplinary action against its employees and if the Authority initiaLes disciplinary action beiatedly or beyond the time period hxed in ttre Rules governing the Authority, then the same would tantamount to inherent lack of jurisdiction ' In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the decision 8. oi the Hon'ble Apex Court h Punjab Sto:te Pouer Corpotation Linited,PoLtiala:u.AtflldsinghGreuall,relevantparagraphs are extracted hereunder.

2. Trre Respondent filed the writ Petition in the High Court seeking ' quashing of the said charge sheet on thc ground that it r'vas barred in view of Rule 2.2.lBl of the Punjab Civil Service Rules 2 reserves riqltt rvith the Governmen( to wilhhold or wilhdraw a pension or a parl of il under certain circumstances viz lr'hen in judbial proceedings or departmental proceedings, such an employee is found to have committed grave misconduct or negligence lt also provides for recoverr'' ,1zfiqrs scc 666 ,i ,i .'t !. t, I, v, t4 rtrecise of peculiar loss, if caused. However, second proviso tc the aforesaid provision stipulates the rime limit within which the departmental inquin can be instituted, in respect of an ex employer lf it q,as Dot stated \\.hil,t such a Government officer was in servir-r:. ,lhe langrragc of seconrl proviso is as follo\(,s: ''such der)ar-tmental proceedings, if not instituted whrre t rre olticcr $.as in scnrr:e \rlretirer before his retirement or during his re-ernploymenL: (i) shall not )e instituted savc rvith the sanction of the Go\,trnmentt (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place nrore than forrr l,cars before such institution; and if he has retired, the e(.ont shoLlld not bc mo.e thit,1 ,l iii) shall l)e L-ondllcted b1. such authoritv and in such place as thc (io!e.nnlcnt rlar clir-ect and in accordance uith the proccrl tr-e applicable to depiirtmerr tal proceedings in which an order of dismissa I lrorn scrwir:e corrld lte marlc in relation to the officer during his service 5 ears old. lJ' In th': pr.scnt case since the changes u.ere of the vear 2002 and charge shcet served in the year 2OOg, it was manifest thtrt the allcged event took place much more than 4 years before the serving of charge sheel altd aflcr his retirement. In this ground the learneci Singte Jud€le .lLrashed tlre saicl chargeslteet dated T.l.2OOa. The petitiolrers citose to file appcai before the Division tsench which has also becn dismissc(l b\. the Division llt:nch vide impugned judgment dated 20.a.2OCg. .+. Aftcr hearing the Counscl for the parties we are oj the opinion thar in vie\r r i albresairl admitted facts, second proviso of liule 2 statcs at the ilce of thc petitioncr and no fault can be found in the judgmcnt of thc IIigh Coru t."

9. The law on this aspect is well-settled. Suffice it to refer another .judgment on the same i.e. Brajendra Singh Yambem a. union of Indiaz which also held that memorandum of charges are beyond period of limitation of four years and were (2O t6) 9 SCC, 2 ) ,wry." ? l5 quasheci. While holding the same, the Apex Court also held that if manner of doing particular act is prescribed unde r any statute, then act must be done in that manner or not at all- Further, the Apex court held that High Court therein erred in holding that once due sanction obtained by disciplinary aulhority from President of India, then bar of limitation of four years contained in R.9(2)(b)(ii) would not apply' Sincc sancLion accorded itself was barred by limitation, the impugr-red judgment of High Court upholding dccision o[ responclents Lo hold deparlments enquiry against appellant unsuslaiuablc' In the instant case, respondents, without resorting

10. to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against petitioner within four period in terms of Rule 34.5 of Ruies, 1989, had taken a stancl that it had obtained prior sanction in terms of Rule 34 4 of Rules, 1989, as such issuance o[ Charge l\ifcmo dated 26.07.2021 is justihed. In view of the decision of Brajendra Singh Yambem (supra), such stand o[ respondcnts is not tenable. Even if Rule 34.4 is read and taken as it is, it also clearly prohibits initiation of disciplinary proceedings for an event which took place more than four years beforc such institution.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that issuing Charge Memo (Articles of Charges) dated 26'07 '2021 ,I t' ... 'i t t. l6 o ncarlv mor,r than four years after petitioner left Contract Managcmenr celr as General Manager in 2016 itself is without -juriscliction as the same is issued bcyond tnc periorl of limitatiorr prescribed in Rule 34.5 of Rules, l9g9 and accordinglr,, sets asidc the same. Resultanlly, the Writ petition is liable to br: allou.ed ancl is accordingly, allowed. No costs. t2 r:krsed Miscellaneous Applications, if an1, shall stand //TRUE COPYII /- q SS JAYA LAXMI B-EGilS+EER- p/- L. vt lUryt JSECTION OFFICER $lL#,ffiHlff rrt,t:+:iissir.,n".,il:? u ry Authori tY), Singareni m Collieries-507.101, $llffiEi#ffi Iff lffi r.{.:$3",[i'"R.,fl 33,#it," 3],,,",i1]: f,,i,itil To, 1 2 '$lls:iiflilil83lfl .-ft 4. One CC to SRt GODA RAMALAKSHMI, Advocate tOpUCl 5 One CC to SRt o.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL [OPUCJ t*o CD Copies ,,:ilj,b".,-i:"ylxi,,?.,iaSii'r??iL,tJ,:f.i,iril ,af PVL W HIGH COURT DATED:28 t0Bt2O2S ORDER WP.No.37521 of 2021 Bo\l -{r rL.rrl{L-'-\ ( /. \ 2 2 srp z0m Dt ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS c"A g(9?'-" &=