The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to promote the petitioner as Administrative Officer without reference to trivial and baseless Charge Memos dated 1010112018 and dated 1510512019 pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under .Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend Charge fVlemo dated 1010112018 and dated 15105!2019 issued against the petitioner. lA NO: 3 OF 2022 Petition under rSection 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner/ appellant to file Additional Documents and receive the same as Additional Material Papers in W.P.No.'12 ol 2022. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.SUDHEER Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES-II The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.12 OF 2022 ORDER: Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2 The D tioner aDDroac ed the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to call for the records pertaining to Charge Memos dated 10.01.2018 and dated 15.05.2019 and set them aside as bad, illegal, irrational, illogical, baseless, trivial, belated and consequently direct the respondents to promote the petitioner as Administrative Officer with effect from the date on which she is entitled / availability of vacancy, with all consequential benefits by issuance of Writ of Mandamus/ Certiorari or to issue Writ, Order or Direction in the interest of justice and to

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner joined in the respondent department as typist on 28.11.2008 and got promoted as senior assistant on 03.01.2013' 2 Thereafter, the petitioner had not been considered for promotion to the post of Administrative officer due to pendency of two Disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner's further case is that one of the disciplinary proceedings i.e., charge memo, dated :t0.01.2018 needs to 5e st:t aside as the proceedings against the other similarly placerJ persons were withdrawn and the another proceedinqs i.e., charge memo, dated 15.05.2019 with regard to surprise che,:k in the year 2016 is untenable as there is no specific allegation and evidence against the petitioner herein. Hence the petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking to sct aside and quash both the disciplinary proceedinqs and also sought direction to respondents to consider the pe,titioners request for promotion to the post of Adm inistrative off ice r. 4 PERUSED THE RECORD:- A Letter No.LL7 /V3/V2/ 2O15, dated O3. 05.202L add ressed bv the Joint TransDort Commissioner (V). the Transoo rt Commissioner. Telanqana, Office of Hvderabad addressed to t he Director Gener Lof ACB, 3 Anti Corru ronof B U reau_ Governme ntafT l, n art na Hvderabad is extracted hereu nder: - " In the reference 4th and 5th cited, copies of the documents mentioned in Annexure IV of the articles of charges pertaining to the surprise check conducted by ACB Officials on 04.01.2016 in the ofFice of the DTC, Karimnagar, were requested as desired by the charged officers so as to communicate the same to the individuals for submitting their written statements of defence. But till date no reply has been received in this office. B. The cou ter affidavit has been filed o n behalf of th e resoonde ts and in oarticular Dara Nos. 4, 6 & 8 are extracted ereunder: -

4. It is submitted that there are two pending against Smt T.Rajitha, Senior Assistant i.e., ACB case and one Departmental case. Facts relevant to the present Writ Petition are that, with reqard to Departm ental Case (File.N o.2687 IVA/20 17); the h dated O4.04.2 O23. Tr.R&B (Tr.Viq.) DeDartment and the same was communicated to the individual .R No.16 e was Govt.v I .2023. he etiti no char his re ar It is submitted that in response thereto, in 6. Lr.No.Nil, dated 10.08.2021, the Inspector of Police, ACB, Karimnagar District furnished the listed documents of the Article of Charges framed against the petitioner Smt Tejavath Rajitha, Senior Assistant and others. The said documents were furnished to all the charged officers, vide Transport Commissioner Office Memo.No.117/V3/V2/2016, dated 24-OB.2OZL- In response thereto, explanations of all the charged officers including the petitioner herein received, regular .r't**l&i;, 4 inquiry was ordered by appointing Sr M.Chandra Shekhar, the then Deputy Transport Commissioner, Karimna,3ar presently working as Deputy. Transport Commiss;ioner, Ranga Reddy District as the Inquiring Authority to lnquire into the charges framed against the ioner herein and others. The Ino u irv officer after enoutrv submi ted his Enouirv ReDo dated 22. 5.2024. The same rsu nder consideration B. It is submitted that with regard to here request for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, during the panel year 2O2O-2L, the Department convened DpC on 04.02,2021 to the post of Administrative Officer and the name oF Smt T.Rajitha, Senior Assistant, the petitione' herein has been placed before the DpC for consideration a s per the then seniority and eligibility. It ts noticed that. she was issued charo Memostn two Discioli narv case s r.e., in one AC B case Charoe Memo. No.1 L7 /v3lY 2120L6 dated 15.O5. 019 neD Dartme tal c se Charqe Memo.No.56 87 lVLt 20L7, 10.01.2o18. Hence, the D PC reco mmend d that "the na eof Smt T.Raiith a is co sidered and oass overas charqes were Dendi nq aoar nst her" The DPC consid e red the next name of Sri M.A.Kh lee! Ahmed, Seni or Assi ant Who ls Iunto r in the then v alono with others and recom mende his n me for Dromotion as istratlve Officer as Der elioibilitr list of Admi leZ n lori n ror DISCUSSION AND CO NC LUSION:- 5. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in particular para Nos. 4, 6 & 8 clearly indicates that with regard to Departmental 5 case the charge was dropped by Government vide G.O.Rt.No.162, dated O4.O4.2O23 and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 16.06.2023 hence, no charge is pending against the petitioner in this regard, and further that the charges were framed against the petitioner herein as per the orders of the Government in Memo No.5261/Tr.(S&V)/2/2018, dated O4.O5.2O19 consequent to a surprise check conducted by ACB Officials on 04.O1.2016 in the office of DTC, Karimnagar and in response to the Charge Memo. dated 15.O5.2019 issued to the petitioner herein, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 27.O5.2OL9 seeking the listed documents from the respondents to enable the petitioner to submit written statement of defence, but however, the respondents had failed to submit the reply and thereafter a reminder letter, dated Og.O7.2O2O and 03.O5'2021 was addressed to the Director General, ACB, Hyderabad to furnish the documents at the earliest and in pursuance to the above said reminder letter, all the documents had been 6 furnished to all the charged officers vide office Memo, dated 24.09.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner furnished the explanation to the Charge Memos issued to the petitioner and an Enquiry Authority had been appointed to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner herein and others, subsequentty, the Enquiry Officer after due enquiry submittecl an Enquiry report, dated 2Z.OS.2OZ4 and the same is under consideration.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the surprise check conducted on 04.01.2016 had been basis to issue the Charge Memo, dated 15.O5.2019 against the petitioner herein and therefore, the charge memo, dated 15.O5.2O19 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent is baseless anct trivial and the same had been pending since 2OLg and the other charge memo, dated 10.O1.2018 issued to the petitioner pertaining to Departmental case had been dropped as admitted ln 7 the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents at para No.4. 7 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that in view of the fact that the enquiry in respect of the charge memo, dated 15.05.2019 is being delayed and further the charge memo had been issued belatedly after the incident took place in the year 2O16, the charge memo has to be set aside, since the petitioner is loosing opportunities for promotion and those junior to the petitioner are being promoted.

8. This Court taking into consideration the specific averments made at para No.6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) that the Inquiry Officer had concluded the enquiry and submitted an enquiry report, dated

22.05.2024 and the same is under consideration is not inclined to allow the Writ Petition as prayed for. 9 Takinq anto con sideration: 8 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assista nt Govern ment Pleader for Services-II appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The contents of letter No.LL7/V3/V2/2OL6, dated 03.05.2021 addressed by the Joint Transport Commissioner (V), Office of the Transport Commissioner, Telangana, Hyderabad addressed to the Director General of ACB, Anti Corruption of Bureau, Government of Telangana (referred to and extracted above) d) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above ). he Writ Peti nt sed of obs rvr u nder: - This Court opines that in view of the fact as borne on record that charge memo, dated 15.05.2019 of the 2nd respondent pertained to a surprise check t \ 9 sN., pertaining to an incident that took place in the year, 2016 and since the issue is pending since 2O19 and the counter affidavit at para No.6 clearly indicates that the Inquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on 22.05.2(J24, the respondents are directed to conclude the said disciplinary proceedangs within three (O3) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Pending conclusion of the said disciplinary proceedings pertaining to charge memo, dated 15.O5.2019 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent within the time period as indicated as above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance to law for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer with effect from date on which the petitioner is the vacancy with all entitled/availability of consequential benefits without reference to the disciplinary proceedings pertaining to charge memo, dated 15.o5.2O19 issued to the petitioner by the 2nd .t. l0 respondent and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// / SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REG,ISTRAR \li. / SECTION!bFFICER To,

1. The Principal lSecretary to Government, Transport, Road and Buildings Departmeni, Se:retariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Transport Commissioner, Transpo( Department, istate of Telangana, Hyderabad.

3. The District -Transport Officer, District Transport Office, Peddapalli' Karimanagar Di:itrict.

4. One CC to SRI ,J.SUDHEER, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI

6. Two CD Copies BSR I I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1710312025 CC TODAY ,/,-: c. STA,'€ c^ q c 2 2 Ai,H 2[25 i--. .- ' ,.4. 9^.11 '\ -:: I ), .// ORDER WP.No.I2 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS r0\1 'IJ> \\ I I I r I I